Preface

The Aim of this Work

The aim of this work begins with the telling of the life of Rudolf Hess as a narrative, highlighting
the principal events and developments that occurred throughout his first forty-seven years. In terms
of a narrative approach one can divide this work chronologically, with the overlapping themes, into
the following specific periods: these are namely Hess’ pre1914 schooling and early apprenticeship
for a Hamburg trading company, his First World War experience as infantryman, 2nd Lieutenant and
Flying Officer, his participation in the German counter-Revolution as a Freikorps volunteer, his
joining of the ‘Thule-Gesellschaft’ and of the NSDAP, his attending at the University of Munich as
an economics student, his ignominious part in Putsch-politics and in the disaster of Hitler’s first
attempt at seizing political power, his subsequent incarceration with Hitler in Landsberg prison, his
involvement in the restructuring and expanding of the party organization and, lastly, there is the
period covering the Nazi 'seizure of power' acting as the decisive caesura in his life as much as it
does in the fortunes of Hitler and the NSDAP movement. Thereafter, this story is one of escalation:
of extreme racial prejudice, of concentrated state efforts to reach a Nazi racial utopia, of the
mobilization of German youth, of ideological preparations for racial war and the conquest of living
space [Lebensraum] and of the expansion of the police and SS-SD security apparatus along with its
concomitant institutionalization of the concentration camp system as the most nefarious aspect of
Nazi-Germany.

One may add Hess’ brief retrospective look at himself from the standpoint of being one of the
accused at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal in 1945/46, which provides a platform for his final
remarks and self-assessment of his political career – the aspects of which he never failed to regret.
His flight – the famous self-appointed solo-peace Mission to England on 10th /11th May, 1941 –
overshadows the Hess story and its significance has been deliberately left in this work to the very
last. My aim was not to permit Hess’ political career as one of the regime’s leading exponents of
intellectual anti-Semitism to be neither underestimated nor overshadowed by his flight. If anything,
the flight represents the point of departure from Hess’ political career and that is why the
chronological story ends abruptly in spring 1941. It is neither the intention nor the resolve of the
author here to explain the flight in any great depth, for this has been a question most discussed in
regard to Hess by historians. Only a few such as Kurt Pätzold, Manfred Weißbecker [Heß – Der
Mann an Hitler’s Seite, Militzke Verlag, Leipzig 1999] and Peter Longerich [Akten der
Parteikanzlei, Teil I. 2, 1 Einleitung, München o. J, which has also appeared under the independent
title: Heß: Der Stellvertreter des Führers, München/London/New York 1992] have offered the
reader insight into Hess’ ideological function as the chief party bureaucrat and quasi-religious anti-
Semitic figure of the NSDAP movement. The aim of this work is to consolidate their research and
historical approach, emphasizing, however, in contrast a much sharper look at Hess’ anti-Semitism.

Furthermore, one ought not to misunderstand Hess’ special relationship to Hitler. The reason being
that Hess still remains an iconic figure for far-Right propagandists and neo-Nazi radicals, whose
reproduction of his image and of extracts from his speeches and personal reflections claim to show

13
him as a loyal German patriot and as a politician desiring peace. In this context justification for his
support of Hitler and of the German-Aryan racial ideal is given substance and meaning, thus
attracting uninformed young people to neo-Nazi ideas and to the mythologizing of the Third
Reich’s history. More disconcerting is the role played not only by young misguided followers of
far-Right propaganda, but also by those responsible intellectual figures who shape the ‘Revisionist’
portrayal of Nazi history, especially in their disavowal of the Nazi treatment and racial murder of
Germany’s Jews and of the greater majority of Jews transported and killed in the death camps,
concentration camps, satellite labor camps and the ghetto-system established by the racial Nazi New
Order in Central-Eastern Europe and in former parts of the Soviet Union.

Among the number of ‘Revisionist’ historians who have fabricated the ‘Hess-Myth’ and denied the
full extent of the racial crimes of the Third Reich one may count the historian David Irving, whose
portrayal of Hess as a prisoner of the British [Hess – The Missing Years 1941-1945] purports to
show Hess as a victim of tragedy and injustice and as a figure manipulated to satisfy the aims and
agenda of the Churchill-government. To an extent Irving successfully evokes sympathy from the
reader for his subject by correctly deducing that there was a British agenda to manipulate Hess.
This aspect of the Hess story – not dealt with here in any great detail – shows how the British
wanted to identify Hess as part of the perceived ‘German Problem’, a viewpoint determined to see
Germany as a flawed country and lacking in a genuine constitutional history and democratic
development. This myth was construed by Western historians, among others A. J. P. Taylor [who
wrote The German Course of History, London 1948], purporting to show how Germany lagged
behind her western neighbors and America in terms of political and constitutional development and
thus represented what was defined as ‘The German Problem’.

As a prisoner of the British between 1941 and 1945 Hess fitted the British predilection for
portraying Germans as a hopeless ‘race’ drilled in obedience and as one easily mobilized for war on
account of an apparent innate aggressive nature. This supposedly had its roots in the early
Germanic tribes who had ‘massacred’ two powerful Roman legions at the famed Battle of the
Teutonburger Wald in the year 9 AD. Interestingly, the British attempt to mythologize a course of
German History shaped by barbarity was a legacy of British First World War propaganda when
stories were first circulated about how the ‘Hun’ – the term used to characterize the Germans as
barbarous – first crucified babies and murdered nuns. The controversial German execution of the
British nurse Edith Cavell in 1915 intensified the British resolve to caricature their German enemy
as ‘heartless’ and ‘murderous’ so as to dramatically increase British willpower in war production
[especially after the infamous Shell-Shortage Crisis of 1915]. The ‘Lusitania Affair’ – a result of
the sinking of the Cunard passenger liner in the Irish Sea in May, 1915 – added to the British
propaganda fanfare against the Germans, which by the end of the Great War culminated in Lloyd
George’s “Hang-the-Kaiser” electoral campaign in 1918.

The legacy of British First World War propaganda against Germany clearly affected the way British
propagandists conducted the war against Nazi-Germany. The British made the fundamental
mistake of not being able to identify the perverse anti-Semitic and racial dynamic energizing the
Third Reich; rather they saw the regime as one supported by and established on the traditions of
Prussian-German militarism – a view dating back to the First World War and to pre1914 rivalry. In
this respect Hitler was portrayed to an extent as an instrument of the German ruling elites and
military caste system. When Hess was captured in spring, 1941, Churchill had him initially
imprisoned in the White Tower, in the Tower of London. This act symbolized Churchill’s romantic
nature and audacious behavior, seeing in Hess none other than ‘an interloping vagabond’ worthy of
being treated as humiliatingly as any other Traitor or Despot that had threatened England’s crown
as if the war were of no less importance than, say for example, the Elizabethan Wars against Spain.

14
In this context Hess’ figure was ridiculed by the British Government, but just as news of Hess’
capture attracted media attention Churchill quickly decided to keep Hess as ‘a silent prisoner’ out of
the public limelight.

The fact that Hess was scurried away to Abergavenny in South Wales and imprisoned there in a
secluded spot didn’t, however, bring an end to Hess’ manipulative treatment. In seclusion Hess was
subjected to psychiatric treatment and was portrayed by a series of British doctors, among them
Brigadier Rees [The Strange Case of Rudolf Hess, New York/London 1947], as “cranky” and
“eccentric” and as an “archetypal example” of the disciplined “Prussian-German” mode of
obedience and cruelness. What was expressed in Hess’ medical reports was none other than an
attempt to justify in British eyes that there indeed existed a “German Problem.” Hess was
diagnosed as someone with typical “Prussian-German features.” This contributed to the British
perception especially of northern Germans as “barbarous”, “unintelligent” and “war-like.” Such
caricaturing was used as a political device to convince Anglo-American opinion for the need to
abolish Prussia at the end of the Second World War, which was indeed carried out in 1947. The
Prussian tradition was held responsible for the tragedy of German History and Hess was implicated
as a figure very much a part of this tradition seen as a manifestation of innate and corrupt German
obedience and authority.

Yet the above belongs to the ‘Hess-Myth,’ part of a post-war Allied portrayal of his character used
to justify the Allied occupation policy in the defeated Germany of 1945. Only when the full horror
of the Nazi racial crimes against humanity became clearly apparent did the Allied authorities
introduce their “De-Nazification Program.” However, prior to their attempt to explain the calamity
of the Nazi regime the Allies had simply regurgitated the old worn legend of “Prussian-German”
insensibilities [something Churchill had contributed to in the reworked edition of his The World
Crisis, London 1931]. Hess was caricatured as one having belonged to the “Prussian-German”
military caste system, but this was never true. His parents were German expatriates
[Auslandsdeutsche] and although educated at a Protestant-evangelical boarding school for young
men in Bad Godesberg Hess on account of his mother’s origins and religious faith had an early
attachment to Bavaria and Catholicism. Indeed the family summer home was located just outside
Bayreuth in the village-setting of Reicholdsgrün. Hess was not by nature aggressive nor barbarous
and not until his twenty-fourth year did he become an anti-Semite. The importance of this work is
to stress Hess’ varied and educated up-bringing and to show that like other young men of his
generation he suffered under growing-up problems that had nothing to do with the later British and
Allied portrayal of him as a “crank” and “military stereotype.”

This kind of mythologizing of Hess’ life has inadvertently helped ‘Revisionist’ historians to put
forward their case that Hess was a victim and a ‘prisoner of misfortune’. The ‘Revisionist’
viewpoint argues that he cannot be blamed for his actions, for these were undertaken, so claims
Dirk Bavenbamm, under the all-pervasive “spirit of the times” [“Die Zeitgeist”]. Among
‘Revisionist' historians, we may count Dirk Bavenbamm, [1] Elisabeth Grolitsch and David Irving,
[2] who have their own agenda and deliberately undermine the accuracy of historical interpretation.
They reaffirm the ‘Hess-Myth’, one that purports to show Hess as the simple patriot working for the
German people out of a deep felt love and an international commitment to peace. One ought not to
accept this interpretation, but challenge it and expose it for what it is. ‘Revisionists’ may share the
same narrative approach as other historians, but they do not acknowledge the themes; and these
unmask Hess' place in History.

15
 I

Hess is unquestionably identified with Hitler's personal World View (Weltanschauung) and his
'Final Solution Anti-Semitism'.[3] He was a man who successfully helped Hitler through a well
orchestrated racial, ideological and anti-Semitic agenda. Hitler expressed generalities in his book,
Mein Kampf; a product of their six month collaboration together in Landsberg prison in 1924. Hess
styled himself ostentatiously as the Idealist of the Nazi movement. [4] Although he failed as a
university student [he couldn't complete his studies], he considered himself capable of grasping
themes intellectually. [5] He recognized he wasn't an intellectual talent, but nevertheless saw
himself as an average person able – thanks to his education and his social-class background (the
Bildungsbürgertum) – to engage with intellectual fortitude a number of diverse problems: many
affecting education, the youth program, social policy, car production, consumer sales, social
welfare, babies, mothers and hospitals. [6] In short we see all the attributes helping him to promote
his vision for a national racial community; an idea he had first considered back in 1916/17 after
having read Othmar Spann’s Staat und Gesellschaft. [7]

A broad interest in people and society formed the basis of Hess' ideas. He felt himself to be well
grounded in the ideas of “Bildung und Kultur”. One question frequently expressed is how is it that
the Nazis were able to make substantial gains among the middle class voters and in the guise of a
national movement claiming to represent the values of culture and education. Wasn’t their whole
ethos geared in actual fact towards a destructive malevolence against their enemies? Yet our views
of the destructive nature of National Socialism obscure its “hidden creative side;” one preaching a
warped sense of piety and humanity and a utopia surrounding the ultimate racial expression of man
through a perfected society. This “hidden trend” one can seek to unveil in this study, so that we
may be left with the clear supposition that National Socialism did offer the populace a decipherable
idealism, which did make inroads upon young minds. The regime wasn’t just, as described by the
German émigré intellectual Hermann Rauschning [Germany's Revolution of Destruction, London
1939], on a road towards destruction. In analyzing Hess’ bürgerlich upbringing we may account
for his later National Socialist idealism in the early influence of his parent’s values on piety, moral
fortitude and the community. From these early beginnings Hess was to expound upon his
“sophisticated” ideas for a racial utopia under the NSDAP. One may add that Hess was also
profoundly influenced by the volkish-nationalist and cultural philosopher, Houston Stewart
Chamberlain [1855-1927], the Wagnerian who spoke to him and Hitler on several occasions.

It appears that the racist Wagnerian philosopher also imposed upon Hess and Hitler an attitude
towards Great Britain, which also displayed a certain dichotomy and which was to plague Nazi
attitudes towards Britain in terms of whether to embrace her or to reject her. What Chamberlain
taught was that there consisted essentially speaking two kinds of Britain: firstly the one
Chamberlain associated with the old aristocratic and colonial image of the country as in the times of
Burke and Gladstone, while the other image was less praiseworthy and in Chamberlain’s mind
betrayed the features of a “Jew-ridden” mercantile and materialist kingdom that was in opposition
to the “Zivilisation” and “Kultur” of Germany. Such irascible views from the old man left their
deep impression on Hess and curiously sowed the seed of ambivalence in Hitler’s mind regarding
how he should approach the British. The same could be said for Hess, who as a result of
Chamberlain’s bigoted views against his former homeland [he had been born in Southsea near
Portsmouth], oscillated between a vehement hatred of the British and a need to compromise with
them, if but for the sake of the “White race,” which in the era of “Cultural Pessimism” following
the First World War saw the imperial mission of the “White Man’s Burden” seriously threatened.

16
The confusion Hess had over the British, and no less Hitler, originates perhaps in the pseudo-
cultural dimension of National Socialism, which by no means was capable of grappling with the
dichotomy between “Zivilisation” and “Kultur” of which Ernst-Robert Curtius writes.[8]

In drawing attention to the pseudo-cultural and pseudo-educative aura surrounding National

Socialism’s appeal one may grasp the extent of the reasons for the tragedy that befell Germany in
1933. Germany – dating from the Kaiser’s time – had a specific outlook on civilization and culture
making it more susceptible, so argues Curtius, to the platitudes of the Nazi racial-ideological
message. Unlike in Britain and France, the notion of German Civilization was caught in a
repressive dichotomy between “Zivilisation”, representing the body of the materialist age and its
technical conquests, and “Kultur,” which was the “spiritual patrimony of the nation.” Sadly, the
dichotomy was never resolved and pulled in two different directions allowing for a fractured
“Cultural Pessimism” that held Germany in a vice throughout the years of the Weimar Republic;
and it was this the NSDAP and someone like Hess with imaginative ability promised to resolve by
inserting into the Nazi electoral message the aim of building up a cultural utopia – one to be based
on racial, social economic criteria. The fractured duality in which Civilization was perceived also
allowed for the predominance of other culturally inspired social and economic theoreticians such as
the Austrian idealist, Othmar Spann [1878-1950], whose conceptualization of society divided into
professional work guilds and communal organizations [known as Stände]. His ideas were also an
attempt to bridge the gap between the idea of “Zivilisation” and “Kultur” so that the populace in
their workplace could enjoy the aesthetic and spiritual fulfillment of work and the community.[9]
Into the vicissitudes left by the rift of the German cultural perception stepped the National
Socialists, who were able to make their mark. The Nazi rise and Hess’ political career have to be
evaluated against this peculiar dichotomy unique to Germany.

Another question that remains unanswered is how did someone with Hess’ educated, cultural
background manage to succumb to Nazism? Unlike Hitler who was left unguided through the
untimely death of his parents he never had to roam the streets of prewar Vienna looking for his
daily crust; and neither did he express his pent up frustrations brooding in a doss house for young
men. Hess was a creditable member of Germany’s cultured class, the Bildungsbürgetum.
Nevertheless, although he wasn’t exposed to the radical street anti-Semitism and gutter press of
Hitler’s Vienna days, he was susceptible at times to the inherent cultural anti-Semitism of the
German cultured elite, in which he was brought up. He was, however, not an anti-Semite until the
age of twenty-five when he joined the peripheral ranks of the Thule Gesellschaft, which was
founded in Munich by an eccentric and anti-Semitic aristocrat Rudolf von Sebottendorf [1875-
1945]. Prior to then he would have been acquainted with the concept of the “Judenfrage” [“The
Jewish Question”], which had a central place in the intellectual schism over the relationship
between Jews and Germans; a cultural debate first emerging among the Bildungsbürgertum at
around the time of the interesting and promising debates regarding a German/German-Jewish
intellectual symbiosis and out of which emerged the term “Judenfrage” first coined by Karl Marx
[1818-1883] and Otto Bauer, whose intention had been to promote an open forum for Jewish life
within Germany. [10] German Nationalists abused the term and adopted it during the era of 1880-
1914. It was further misused by the NSDAP and other right-wing parties, including the DNVP,
throughout the period of the first German republic [1918-1933]. The term implies a nation for
Germans only. Jews are to be excluded. The German intellectual symbiosis between Jew and non-
Jew, of which Karl Marx and Otto Bauer had felt very much a part, was refuted through the
NSDAP’s rejection of humanism and of the Enlightenment. The movement chose instead to preach
a warped pseudo-humanity, [11] as was made evident by a keynote speech of Hess’ as war clouds
gathered in Europe during the late 1930s.[12]

17
Jews didn't fit into Hitler's racial conception of the world. The NSDAP leader rejected “Gleichheit”
(“Equality”) between the races. His views of ‘higher’ and ‘lesser’ peoples condemned Jews as
social pariahs, misfits and racial undesirables. [13] He misconstrues Friedrich Nietzsche, who felt
that all ‘races’ had the chance of improving themselves spiritually, intellectually and healthily
through an expression of 'self-will'. [14] The Zionist, Dr. Siegfried Stern, a Jew who sought
collaboration with Hess, admires Nietzsche for this very reason and mistakenly believed Hitler
represented a quest for racial strength, inclusive of Jews. Stern naively believed an effective
collaboration between German Zionism and National Socialism – something Hess encouraged him
to think – was possible in 1933/34 when the NSDAP made political overtures towards the Zionist
movement. The Nazis rejected Jewish Assimilation without any qualms, so that their
aggressiveness towards integrated Jews was far harsher than their milder attitude towards Zionists.
Hess’ acceptance of the Zionist appeal for help reflects a curious episode in NSDAP history. One
may think this illustrative of Hess expressing a different attitude from Hitler’s, but to suggest this
would imply that Hess underestimated him. He didn’t and in fact played a leading role in
propagating the Hitler cult [the ‘Hitler-Myth’]. [15]

Hess didn’t misunderstand Hitler at all as was the case of Dr. Stern’s. At first glance it appears that
in 1933/34, Nazi anti-Semitism was slipping into a kind of quandary, not knowing how to proceed
against ‘all Jews’. Under Hess' initiative the Reichsdebatten began – an attempt by rational-
thinking Nazi intellectuals to push aside ‘Pogrom-Politics’ through a calculated racially-inspired
scientific view of the world and of its ‘races’. They wanted to find a solution to the Judenfrage and
willingly agreed to collaborate with German Zionism. Hess, persuaded by the intensity of the
debate, responded warmly to Zionist appeals. He was prepared through his liaison with Dr. Stern to
support the Zionists in their emigration policy and to build-up youth organizations for Jewish
resettlement in the Palestine Mandate. Only when it became clear that Zionism aimed to achieve a
strong nation-state for Jews did Hess cripple the idea, arguing collaboration no longer made sense.
In fact he came to fear, as Hitler did, the creation of a potentially strong Jewish nation-state. He
turned into a cynic and wore-out Zionists through his convoluted attitude, which became stronger
after the collapse of the Reichsdebatten in early-mid 1934. He facetiously continued to encourage
‘permitted Zionist youth organizations’ to develop only to confiscate their funds – just as he did
after the 1936 Berlin Olympics ended and when international attention scrutinized Germany less.
Hess also made ‘all Jews’ liable to repressive measures beginning with the first series of racial laws
introduced in autumn 1935 [Die Nürnberger Gesetze], which he promulgated together with Dr.
Wilhelm Frick.

Hess argues against professional organizations being in the guiding hands of trustworthy employers
[known for a brief period under the regime as “die Treuhänder der Arbeit”]. He did not want the
Stände ideal emerging independent of its own accord. He insisted on a coordinating strategy with
the party, a responsibility devised by his private office, Das Amt des Stellvertreter des Führers.
Through this he hoped to achieve a widespread degree of cohesion between intellectuals, field
workers, students and trained technocrats with each becoming positively engaged in different
aspects of his policies, which included: industrial programs of relocation, a drive towards economic
self-sufficiency, the mastering of mass production techniques, the introduction of widespread
mechanization in the farming community, and the build-up of youth organizations. Hess focused
on all these developments as part of his intention to promote a new, vibrant racial consciousness, so
that each task was undertaken with a new reinforced nationalist resolve aimed at bettering the
‘German race’. Under the promotion of culture he instituted the founding of a National Library in
Munich, whose primary objective was to research the ‘Judenfrage’.

18
Hess advanced his ideological agenda on the basis of his understanding of the NSDAP program
[devised by Gottfried Feder on 24th February, 1920], on Spann’s Stände concept, science-based
anti-Semitism and on a need to develop the nation’s racial consciousness. He thus far outweighed
Hitler when it came down to the scope and details envisaged for a ‘German-Aryan' society. The
NSDAP leader was by contrast limited in thought as a result of his inflexible generalizations, seen
regurgitated in Mein Kampf. This book didn't represent a clear program at all; nor was it an
autobiography. It was, rather, a mish-mash, leaving Hitler's supporters, above all his publisher Max
Amann, exceedingly frustrated. Hess, too, in his letters home recognized the inadequacies of
Hitler’s work, which he felt lacked style and structure. Despite such criticism he attributes the
book's faults not to Hitler personally, but to the short period of time – 6 months – with which Hitler
had had to write it.

A considerable part of this study looks at the 'Battle for Ideas,' the time describing the six months of
collaboration between Hitler and Hess in Landsberg prison. Hess provided Hitler with books,
interesting articles in magazines and newspapers and acted as a guide and as a recipient of ideas
during their conversations together in their cells and the prison garden. [16] It shall be shown how
Hess pioneered the way for the relationship between Hitler and Albert Speer, who was to become
unmistakably Hitler's closest friend. [17] Hess, though, was Hitler's first genuine friend because he
expressed understanding for Hitler’s thoughts, especially on architecture. He did this as a deliberate
ploy to win Hitler's heart. [18] Hess comes of age while in Landsberg prison for here he learns how
to recognize in Hitler specific personal leadership qualities. He was also finely attuned to coping
with Hitler’s faults and tried to remedy these or, as he later did, disguise them under the
propagandistic effect of the ‘Hitler-Myth’. In fact Hitler spent a great deal of time away from the
writing of his book, preferring to muse over his architectural drawings. In expressing an interest for
these, Hess was able to sidle up to the NSDAP leader more closely and thus influence him
indirectly.

Among the leading intellectual figures we must count as influential upon Hess’ early political
thought are Gottfried Feder, Othmar Spann, Hans Grimm, Walther Ricardo Darré, Dr. Wilhelm
Ludowici, Hugo Pieper, Carl Lörcher and Schultz-Naumberg, as well as Albert Speer and Dr. Karl
Haushofer. Each of these men provided Hess with positive and negative input to which he
responded accordingly. With Gottfried Feder he 'discovered' an extra dimension to the so-called
'World Jewish Conspiracy', a term he had first encountered during his reading of Die Elders von
Zion. [19] Feder offered Hess a socialist interpretation of anti-Semitism, identifying the reasons for
'injustice' to be rooted in ‘Jewish monopoly-capitalism’. Feder proposes in his NSDAP program the
nationalization of all Jewish property. From Othmar Spann Hess inherits the Stände principle.
With Darré there emerges a war of ideological words, reaching their highpoint in spring 1934, and
Hess’ victory over this particular rival helped him consolidate his reputation as a skilled politician.
He shows a pragmatic approach when appointing, for instance, a special Beauftragter, Dr. Wilhelm
Ludowici, as his representative for agricultural affairs, land settlement and industrial relocation.
Hess’ Beauftragter was in fact able to hold authoritative powers between 1934 and 1936 and these
enabled him to build up a network of organizations across the Reich comprising intellectuals, [20]
agronomists, field experts, research students and administrators. Ludowici was attached to Hess'
personal staff and carried out all his coordinating policies with the aim of fulfilling Hess' racial
vision. [21]

Hess' relationship to the Nazi author, Hugo Pieper, [22] and to the architects Lörcher, Schultz-
Naumberg and Speer all had the effect of widening his understanding for communal improvement
in the work place, to be augmented by aesthetic architectural plans. Among these was the praised
'Eisenberg Project' [23] in Rhineland-Pfalz. Schultz-Naumberg first introduced Hess to Darré at a

19
meeting in his apartment on 10th May, 1930, and this led at first to a rewarding collaboration over
the build-up of collective rural communities, but the two men soon fell out as a result of Darré’s
egotism. Darré began to propose harebrained schemes to establish 'Hegehöfe' [‘devised as racial
breeding community projects’].[24] He alienated provincial administrators and the farming
community throughout the Reich and this helped to cause his debacle with Hess in 1934.

Hess’ liaison with Albert Speer represents his understanding for the aesthetic value behind
monumental public buildings, obelisks and parade grounds. [25] Hitler's fascination for these
interests would ultimately lead to a closer relationship to Speer, who would benefit more greatly
than Hess to enjoy an extra dimension of Hitler’s love and admiration. Speer’s vision for the
monumental took precedence in his ideas for Berlin, [26] which in Hitler’s future racial empire
(“Germania”) was to act as the center piece of ideological glory. The vision for the city included
broad avenues, gigantic colonnaded buildings, sculptures and war memorials. Berlin was to have
its identity altered drastically and this reflected Hitler’s boyish and infantile enthusiasm. The name
‘Germania’ first gripped the dictator during his talks of future glory and architectural greatness
while with Hess during their Lansberg prison days in 1924. The city was to be dominated by a
huge, monumental dome, which was intended to out-rival the ‘Dome of Saint Peter’ in the Vatican.
This reveals the extent of the quasi-religious attributes both Hess and Hitler shared in their future
vision for Berlin.

II

Dr. Karl Haushofer deliberately doesn't figure among the intellectual partnerships Hess had because
I reveal their relationship in terms of what it actually was – an Ersatz-father-to-son relationship
built on the basis of shared intellectual and emotional interests. Their unique bond overshadows
Hess’ difficult and strenuous relationship to his own father, Fritz Hess. [27] The historian Bruno
Hipler maintains that Haushofer was Hitler's ideological teacher of Nazi-Geopolitics and racial war,
[known under the generic term Lebensraum]. [28] One may argue against this, however, as
Haushofer's thoughts and intellectual commitments were rooted in aristocratic-reactionary
nationalism. He wrote extensively, encapsulating into his intellectual vision the idea of a future
national leader sharing the pragmatic qualities of a statesman like Gustav Stresemann [Foreign
Minister of the republic, 1923-29] with the legendary qualities of the Ersatzkaiser, Paul von
Hindenburg [Reich President from 1925 until 1934].

Haushofer’s synthesis of these pragmatic and legendary qualities represents his ideal for the perfect
‘Great Leader’. Examples of his correspondence with Hess in summer, 1924, reveal his
disappointment with Hitler, whom he regards as having failed to meet his criteria for national
leadership. Haushofer’s preference was to reject the 'Hitler Myth' (Hitler's alleged infallibility) and
substitute this with the in reactionary circles more acceptable view of promoting the Ersatzkaiser-
model, exemplified by the ‘greatness’ of Hindenburg-Legend. It is only after Hindenburg’s death
on 2nd August, 1934, at the age of eighty-four, that Haushofer compromises himself with the Nazi
regime and looks for certain advantages to bolster his intellectual career. His position as lecturer at
the Hochschule für Politik in Berlin, however, was to disappoint him as low-pay brought neither
recognition nor an increase in status. This work is the first to reveal the low-esteem Haushofer felt
as a result of an insignificant income not in keeping with his intellectual weight. A previously
overlooked document, hidden away behind the many thousands of documents of the Akten der
Parteikanzlei [an attempt by the Institut für Zeitgeschichte to collate all the available documentary
evidence of the NSDAP that wasn’t destroyed or went missing at the war’s end] reveals
extraordinarily how Haushofer had his case for intellectual status and an increased income
represented by the President of the Hochschule für Politik in a letter circulated around Nazi

20
ministries and addressed to the Reich Propaganda Minister, Dr. Joseph Goebbels. [29]
Significantly, Hess didn’t represent his Ersatz-father’s case at all in this matter and underlines the
fact that at times their relationship was strained and non-communicative.

Hess became a frequent guest and good friend of Karl Haushofer from January, 1920. Hess even
befriended Haushofer’s son, Albrecht, who in Nazi racial terms was a half-Jew on account of
Haushofer’s marriage to the Jewess who had become his wife, Martha. This clearly reveals Hess’
early contradictory stance towards Jews, many of whom like Martha Haushofer had assimilated into
German bürgerlich life. Hess’ contradictory anti-Semitic bias has much to do with the cultural
stereotypes of Jews propagated by the ideology of the German Bildungsbürgertum, which
earmarked Jews as either acceptable or undesirable dividing them into assimilated [acceptable] and
religious [unacceptable] categories. The religious category was usually based on a cultural
condemnation of ultra-orthodox Jewish faith, customs and dress, which were regarded not just as
relics of the past but as an unwanted obstacle to progressive development. This explains why most
anti-Semitic caricatures, emerging in some instances in the German popular press from around the
1880s onwards almost invariably portrayed a Jew in a caftan, with a big beard, dangling side-locks
and with suspicious, guilt-ridden and avaricious eyes.

Remarkably it was this religious caricature of Jews which came up for discussion during the
1933/34 Reichsdebatten between Nazi anti-Semites of all different shades of opinion, including
those who wanted to apprehend the anti-Semitic religious caricature, expose it for what it was [a
fallacy] and to substitute it with serious discussion over the origins and ethnicity of race. The latter
[among whom we may count the Nazi author Johann von Leers] wanted to hand an olive branch to
Jewish Zionists such as Dr. Siegfried Stern, who promoted Jewish national consciousness.
Eventually, however, Hess would abandon Stern in 1935. He would escalate his racial policy
through an extreme agenda of persecution, paving the way for Hitler's 'Final Solution Anti-
Semitism'. Hess came to the conclusion in the wake of the Nuremberg Race Laws that the
perfection of a racial utopia had to be dependent on a racial solution for Die Judenfrage. He aimed
to achieve this through his coordinative strategies emanating from his personal office, Das Amt des
Stellvertreter des Führers, which cooperated with other bureaucrats and technocrats at Reich and
provincial level in pursuit of regulating Die Judenfrage – the outcome of which, within a relatively
short space of time, was to see most of Germany’s Jews [the ones who couldn’t afford to emigrate]
being registered and housed in communal apartments [their own being forcibly acquisitioned] in
restricted areas of the major cities. Jews from the provinces and rural settings were after the 1936
Olympics mostly exiled to the cities despite the fact that the regime-inspired communal sign “Juden
sind hier unerwünscht” still remained glaringly foreboding at the entrance to German towns and
villages.

Hess emphasizes during the years of his ideological power (1933-1941) his relationship between
intellectuals and bureaucrats. Intellectuals such as Dr. Wilhelm Ludowici represent his practical
side, which sponsored initiatives in economic and social planning. Hess’ chief bureaucrat was
Martin Bormann [1900-1945] [30], appointed as his Private Secretary on 1st July, 1933.
[31] Bormann established a firm ideological axis with his superior and learned to act semi-
independently, although he did so always in reverence of Hess’ name. He was astute enough to
realize that his powerbase relied on the ideological authority of his master’s personal office.[32]
Both men circulated Rundschreiben (Party Circulars) regularly and were able through this method
to humble party rivals and to exert simultaneously their goal of completing absolute bureaucratic
control over all party procedures and agendas, including the ideological handling of Die
Judenfrage. Hess remains the dominant partner [at least until 1940/41], contrary to what Bormann's
official biographers think. Bormann appears vacuous and without a personal vision. Hess is the

21
man with a vision, racially at one in his consistency of thought and expression after introducing the
Nuremberg Race Laws.

Regarding Haushofer’s Lebensraum, [33] it remains clear that Hess was limited in his intellectual
understanding of this subject. [34] In fact together with Hitler he was unable to grasp it, especially
its broad and interrelated semantic development with Political Geography. It represented something
beyond a simplified definition. The esteemed academic argued that the nature of changing
circumstances in Political Geography necessitated an adaptable approach to Geopolitics and he
emphasized wide-ranging strategic and theoretical considerations that were continually being
upgraded. With intellectual breadth, Haushofer argues how the priorities of ‘Lebenraum' become
modified according to the materials and resources readily available to an ambitious nation (such as
Germany and in the Far East such as Japan). He sees Russia by contrast in a state of decline, to him
plainly evident before 1914, but he corrects this attitude after 1918 and recognizes in the Russian
Revolution of the preceding year a political act of transformation that was in conformity with the
vast social and economic changes Russia was experiencing. Haushofer was no expert on Russia.
His thesis, Dai Nihon, published in Berlin in 1913, charts her perceived imperial decline, but his
views become flawed. His assessment of Japan is no better, seeing in this Oriental power a model
for Germany's territorial expansion. Japan, he thinks, had to expand at the expense of a decaying
Chinese Empire in order to seize her share of materials and resources for her national and economic
growth; and to sustain her population of 69, 254, 150 inhabitants within a limited island-territorial
area of 377, 535 km². [35] He neither anticipates the legacy of the 'Boxer Rebellion' in 1900 [a
Chinese backlash against European influence] nor the consequential involvement of the European
powers and of the USA in Chinese affairs. [36]

During his republican period Haushofer makes amends for his previous ill-judgments. He argues
how Lebenraum became better suited as a term to describe Great Power spheres of economic and
cultural influence. He advocates a Großdeutsches Reich, but not on the scale Hitler envisaged. He
wanted to reestablish Germany's cultural hegemony and economic preponderance in East-Central
Europe as it had once been during the days of the Dual Alliance between the Kaiserreich and
Austria-Hungary (1879-1914). He is essentially backward-looking, a reactionary and a nationalist
wanting collective unity around an authoritative Ersatzkaiser figure. [37] This biography, however,
is about Hess and Haushofer fits into the story only when necessary to explain Hess’ political
development at one level, but also his personal progress at another, as Haushofer's relationship to
him was, as stressed, like a father to a son. They fell out over their views on Ludendorff, ‘Putsch-
Politics’, and Hitler, who refused to be the 'Drummer Boy' for Haushofer's aristocratic-reactionary
course. In many areas Hess and Haushofer's views overlapped. Both wanted peace, but peace with
their own agenda. Haushofer saw peace as necessary for Continental Europe, not daring to
envisage the totality of war again on the scale of 1914, but he didn't rule out short term and isolated
conflicts to advance the status of a Great Power. Hess thought almost similarly, but incorporated
the idea of short wars into the idea of racial war under the ideological fixed doctrine of the
Herrenvolk, the superior Aryan race, which was how under the influence of Rosenberg both Hess
and Hitler came to regard Lebensraum. [38]

III

Lastly, with one final look at the Hess-Hitler relationship one may discern that the influence
between the two men was complimentary. Hitler provided Hess with a generalized vision of racial
conformity [for the German public to digest and inscribe into their national consciousness] and a
firm resolve to decide finally the ‘complications’ of the so-called 'Jewish Question'. Hess willingly
seized this opportunity to implement his own agenda towards racial harmony. However, the 9th

22
November, 1938 – Reichskrystallnacht – was a day and evening that shocked the German public. It
was an event that managed at the same time to stun the entire nation into a terrible complicity as
young and old passively watched as synagogues, Jewish shops and businesses burned, witnessing,
too, Jews being randomly set upon by Hitler Youth and SA rowdies. [39] This represented the
'Pogrom-Politics' of Joseph Goebbels, who incited party organizations and the SA into an irrational
outburst of mob violence, which he deceptively excused as an expression of Volkszorn ['peoples'
wrath'] against the Jews. Hess saw this as an affront to his rational pursuit of anti-Semitism, which
he had set out to achieve through practical measures and through an implementation of Nazi racial
law. He aimed ‘legally’ to force Jews into giving up their businesses, into relinquishing their assets
and into paying enormous surcharges through an enforced exile. Other Jews suffering under the
humiliation of losing their professional dignity, but who were less able to secure the financial
means, remained in the Reich stripped of their citizenship.

Hess is one of the progenitors of the 'Final Solution', soothing and caressing its development in
gentle stages, leaving Jews stunned, confused, unemployed and penniless. His robbing of the
Jewish community was so intense that the only remaining Jewish organization just before the war –
Der Central Verein jüdischen Glaubens (CV) – could barely function and make for welfare
provision. The outbreak of war radicalized Hess' view of a 'World Jewish Conspiracy', blaming not
Britain and France with whom Germany was at war but imagined ‘Jewish plutocrats' behind the
scenes pulling the strings of ‘Jewish finance capital’. This anti-capitalist streak in Hess’ thinking
was heightened no less than his ‘anti-Jewish-Bolshevist' agenda against Stalin's Russia. It is
curious how conscious Hess was of rivaling Nazi-Germany against the Soviet system. When one
considers Hess' speeches on farming and mechanization and on communal welfare and central
planning, it is with the expressed intention of out-doing Germany's totalitarian rival to the East.
Even one of Hess' decrees was deliberately promulgated in 1937 on the anniversary of the 'October
Revolution.' [40] It is the racial component of his policies, however, that provide the essential
difference between Nazi Germany and the USSR. Hess' promotion of euthanasia, the Aryan ideal
and his resolution to resolve 'Die Judenfrage' provide the sharp contrast.

This work provides the reader with a sharp evaluation of Hess’ commitment to racial utopia and to
the Judenfrage. He enlisted the help of his intellectuals and technocrats, as well as that of civil
servants and party personnel to achieve this twinned-goal. He promoted vigilance and ideological
commitment through “Politische Aktion,” [41] which he saw as neither irrational nor spontaneous
but as a calculated and organized strategy. Hermann Rauschning, the former President of the Free
City of Danzig, rejected the Nazi credo after an initial flirtation and argued its movement was
chaotically irrational. [42] Martin Broszat argues the Third Reich perpetuated systematized chaos
with too many irresolvable contradictions. Tim Mason argues the regime never connected to the
working-class. It is as though the regime, as Edgar Jung wrote for von Papen's Marburger speech
on 17th June, 1934, [43] was steaming like an uncontrollable locomotive without an engine driver.
Yet, a reexamination of Hess' political life offers another perspective to the Nazi dimension,
recognizing instead aspects of party unity, communal welfare and achievement, professional
development and sustained organized bureaucratic measures against the Jews. The fact that Hess
played a part in utilizing his skills for racial utopia has been supported not just by Kurt Patzöld and
Manfred Weißbecker but also by other historians: Ian Kershaw who unveils Hess' role in shaping
the 'Hitler Myth', [44] Uwe Mai in his analysis of the Reichsplanung, especially the Land and
Settlement Question [45] and Rainer Zitelmann, who emphasizes that without the aspects of party
unity Hess achieved there wouldn't have been any concrete steps towards racial utopia and the
‘Jewish Question’ at all. That these two aspects – racial utopia and Die Judenfrage – went hand in
hand was Hess' infamous ‘achievement’. The fact that he leaves the political scene in May, 1941,
to fly to England on his solo-peace mission doesn't exonerate him in any way.

23
Although Hess' ideological mindset offered him distinct advantages, this would handicap him when
speaking with British diplomats after his flight of 10th/11th May, 1941. Why he undertook a solo-
peace mission wasn't as farfetched as historians think. [46] It may even have succeeded had it
occurred a year earlier when Churchill's position was vulnerable. There was the potentiality for
peace between Britain and Germany, but it depended on Hess' ability to connect with those
traditionally anti-Semitic aristocrats within the British Conservative Party. It depended, too, on
Hess' model for European peace conceptualized in his Sudentendeutsches Memorandum in 1938,
which gave precedence to the 'family community of Aryan nations'. [47] Hess was prone to
individualistic stunts, reflecting his romanticist temperament. He channeled his divulging personal
attributes into planned strategies and encouraged Hitler to adopt his unique and daring
electioneering flight campaign, Hitler über Deutschland, in 1932. On other occasions Hess was
less self-controlled, intending for instance, to imitate Lindberg's solo-flight across the Atlantic in
1927, hoping to be the first aviator to succeed in flying in the opposite direction. He discredited his
position, though, during April, 1932, after a failed propaganda stunt in defiance of the Reich
government's ban on paramilitary uniforms. Hess had envisaged flying single handedly over
Prussia with an electoral message tied to the tail of his aircraft, intending after landing to change
into his SA uniform. Such foolishness harmed him politically, as his flight to Britain was to – at a
time when favorable chances of its success had become negligible.

Hess' daring represented an expression of Nietzsche's 'self-will'. The sage of volkish-nationalism,

Housten Stewart Chamberlain, told Hess in the company of Hitler in 1927 how the 'Idealist' always
succeeds as long as belief in the ideal is unshakable and the 'will' is there. In Hess' case this proved
to be a double-edged sword, as his commitment to idealism paradoxically ‘rewarded’ him with a
racial quest leaving him on the pages of criminality. He once wrote of the “Sword of Damocles”
swaying above his head awaiting to decide his fate; [48] yet his interweaving of personal choice
with lame explanations about the intricacies of Fate do not exonerate him. He consciously chose
his Nazi career with all its ramifications, both positive and negative. He enjoyed the climb of the
career ladder to reach the pinnacle of ideological power as Hitler's Stellvertreter, embellishing his
political action with his relentless pursuit of racial utopia and of Die Judenfrage. He sacrificed
himself for his ideals through a self-repressive identification with the racial community enhancing
his own perception of himself as 'Racial Man'. His mind remained unrepentant over his past actions
when in 1945/46 he declared before the Military Tribunal, “Ich bereue nichts!” (“I regret
nothing!”). [49] His mark on History is inextricably bound with Hitler, whom he supported and
used as a vehicle for his racial goals [50] and whom he loved.

Stephen Graeme North, London 8th June, 2008

24
 PART ONE

Formative Years
1912-1933

25
26
 ONE

Great Expectations

“Gott mit Dir mein Sohn, Ich freue mich Deiner Energie.”

– Klara Hess as her son goes to war

“Es ist aber immer dasselbe: 'Vom Gegner nicht Neues’.”

– Hess bored at the front, autumn, 1914

1.1 Out of Egypt

When he was eighteen years old Rudolf Hess came to live in Hamburg after completing his
education at a private boarding school in Bad Godesberg. He had spent most of his years growing
up in Germany as an Auslandsdeutscher, with times intermittently spent back in his native Egypt,
where he had been born in the metropolis of Alexandria on 26th April, 1894. His father, Fritz Hess,
had great expectations for him. As the eldest son Hess was to inherit the family business. [1] For
this reason his father sent him to Hamburg to learn about banking. The family business offered the
eldest son the possibility of a bright future in Egypt once he had completed his banking and finance
apprenticeship. This expected career never happened. The ‘Great Expectations’ father had of son
failed to materialize[2] because of a number of factors, culminating in a course of history that
perhaps neither would have thought possible: Hess’ place in history as the ‘Second Man’ in Adolf
Hitler’s Reich.

Hess’ adolescence in Bad Godesberg had been a happy time.[3] His days there hadn't resulted in
psychological hang-ups often associated with public schools; and neither had he been bullied.
Religion, too, hadn’t presented problems of personal conflict as he accepted his mother's
Catholicism gracefully. Later, he enjoyed the spectacle of his holy communion, celebrated in
September, 1909, in Neuchâtel,[4] where a wealthy aunt had coddled him making him feel secure in
his new surroundings. Hess' adolescent photograph – at the age of fifteen – reveals a scholarly and
handsome face. His teachers encouraged his exuberant singing on the occasions of school night
parades when the boys would march to the local Bismarck memorial with torches blazing. In class
Hess was an accomplished mathematician. He enjoyed science.[5] The new beginning he was to
undertake in his life at eighteen years of age, in Hamburg as an apprentice for an established
international banking firm, didn't go as planned. He grew bored. He indulged instead in an exciting
Bohemian night life, which the city offered him and his so-called friends – artists, students and
apprentices like himself. Each of them enjoyed the hedonistic experience of an overwhelmingly
new materialistic age. One regarded it as the ‘Belle Epoch’.[6] Unfortunately, Hess led a life of

27
deception, informing his parents how he required essential cash for private Arabic lessons and an
extra sum for the purchase of new business suits – necessary in his view for a successful
professional image. His claims were fallacious as well as pretentious. His dressing-up he intended
for his Bohemian life style, while the Arabic lessons never got off the ground. [7]

In his letters to his mother Hess reveals at times an awkward and vulnerable side to his character.
He is to be pitied as he expresses concerns about his inability to make friends among his social
group, who enjoy a hedonistic existence and little else. While suffering under the need to find
acceptance, Hess began to imitate the attitude of his socialite crowd, his so-called friends “die Herrn
Kameraden”, who in some cases were apprentices like himself but who disliked the routine of their
workplace and spoke condescendingly about the ‘ethics’ of business. This young male generation
possessed a certain dynamic, whose highly charged energy challenged bürgerlich convention and
morals. Further disorientated by war and the loss of loved ones, the young would transmit this
dynamic into an unfolding revolutionary energy that would help topple the Kaiserreich on
9th November, 1918.

Sebastian Haffner was another young German who experienced an epoch of change through war,
revolution and inflationary crisis. He, too, was educated in the Wilhelmine school system, was
taught ‘Prussian values’ and learned respect for one’s elders. He though remains true to his origins
and never betrays his father’s trust. His father suffered under the strains of economic collapse
following the end of the First World War, having led a respectable life as a Prussian administrator.
He impressed upon his son the importance of passing professional exams and of entering a good
profession. In Haffner’s case this was to be the legal one. Despite at twenty-five witnessing the
advent of the Nazis, he continued to study hard for his lawyer’s degree, which his father expected of
him. Hess’ father in contrast wasn’t as rigorous in applying his will towards his son. Moreover,
Haffner himself displayed an individualistic streak that did not capitulate to his peers. Writing of a
determined stance to resist their hedonistic preferences Haffner writes: “Ich hatte kein Taschengeld
mehr; aber meine älteren Schulgenossen waren buchstäblich reich, und man raubte ihnen nichts,
indem man sich zu ihren verrückten Festen einladen ließ.” Here Haffner shows his individual
strength and resists the temptation to deceive his parents and to misuse friends. [8]

Although one cannot generalize about the conditions in which German youth found itself in the
early 20th Century it is clear that there was always a choice for those wishing to be more
individually expressive and those influenced by the crowd – an not uncommon scenario but in
Germany were condition became radicalized choice became all that more important. Hess
confesses his weakness of wanting to follow hedonistic trends but feels his conscience impinged,
writing to his mother of moral difficulties and of feelings of isolation. He admits to his fear of
overspending while in the company of his “Bohemian friends,” who, although they seem to spend
as much as him and even more still have, on account of their wealthy parents, the use of unlimited
funds. Sebastian Haffner grew aware of such challenging problems, but instead of feelings of envy
or of wanting to imitate those who wrecked their parents’ values, he decided upon an individualistic
course of mutual respect and when in need, he turned to his private world of books, his “Tonio
Kröger,” his “Niels Lyhne” and “Malte Laurids Brigge.”

Haffner’s ability to break through the veneer of caricature and stereotypes enabled him to form true
friendships. He also acquainted himself with Frank Landau, a Jew and a fellow legal student. The
relationship between them pinnacles towards a touch of sensitivity as they sort through worn
possessions: old photographs, letters, diaries and poems that reflect their former friendships and
relationships. Haffner writes:

28
“Das war unsere Jugend, die hier in diesem Schubfach aufbewahrt gelegen hatte wie in einem Herbarium
und ihr Duft war nur konzentrierter und betäubender geworden durch einen Zusatz von Tod, Vergangensein,
von ‘Unwiederbringlich dahin’. Alte Bilder, wie wir im Sportdress zwischen Kameraden von einst standen,
Bilder von einer Bootsfahrt mit Mädchen, die hier noch nach den Bällen sprangen, festgehalten in einem
ewigen Schweben?” [9]

The personal reflection he shares this with his Jewish friend contrasts strikingly with Hess, who
neither keeps a diary nor shares a close friendship. He is alone and dependent on his mother, with
whom he discovers an outlet for his sensitivities, although these – once again in contrast to
Sebastian Haffner – reveal a young mind incapable of penetrating the veneer of stereotype and
caricature. Hess becomes trapped by perceptions of himself and of others that don’t probe his
thoughts deep enough. He desires friendships and admires the opposite sex, but doesn’t know how
to relate. Haffner represents the engaging and relaxed picture of sensitivity whereas Hess remains
restrained and frustrated.

Another contrast between these two young men is that Hess’ outlook on life is to an extent
pressurized by the values of his parents whereas Haffner approached his parents under the terms of
mutual respect. Haffner recognizes, for instance, how hard his father works, even though his salary
during the time of inflationary crisis [both in 1923 and in the early 1930s] couldn’t afford to keep
the family financially secure. Writing out of love and respect Haffner conveys his feelings thus:
“Ja, mein Vater war einer von denen, die die Zeit nicht verstanden, oder nicht verstehen wollten,
wie er sich schon geweigert hatte, den Krieg zu verstehen. Er begrub sich hinter dem Leitspruch
‘Ein preußischer Beamter spekuliert nicht’ und kaufte keine Aktien. Damals hielt ich das für ein
außerordentliches Beispiel von Engstirnigkeit, das schlecht zu seinem Charakter paßte, den er war
einer der klügsten Männer, die ich gekannt habe.” [10]

In Hess’ case it is the mother and not the father with whom there is understanding. Like Haffner’s
father, Klara had her own staunch views and refused to recognize the times in which she lived,
seeing in nobility and the royal houses of Europe the mainstay of political security and
stabilization. She reaffirms her husband’s views in many of her letters to her eldest son.[11] This
unveils her as a figure representing patriarchal values of discipline, authority and compassion. Her
intent is to guide her son and to equip him with a firm grasp of social and family responsibility. In
terms of her politics, she was as reactionary as her husband, supported the monarchy and the world
position of the German Reich. At a personal level she always looked for ways of self-improvement
encouraging her Rudolf to read books that would help him. In this sense she was an enlightened
parent, but other respects she remained totally reactionary.

Klara engages intellect and develops interests in response to her son’s. She is intellectually and
emotionally closer to him than her own husband. Fritz Hess is a man buried in the archetypal role
of businessman and colonial proprietor. He represents the Weltpolitik vision, pursuing his
successful business enterprises in the name of ‘die Auslandsdeutschen’ [the German expatriate
community]. His priorities lie with the upkeep of personal values, morals and decency; and he
stresses his commitments as a family man. However, in terms of reaching out emotionally his
feelings remain hamstrung and for most of his life his son, Rudolf, regarded him as inapproachable
– one of the reasons why Hess was to turn to Dr. Karl Haushofer as his ‘Ersatz-Vater” [a surrogate
father] following the war.

The difficulties Hess felt towards his father were initially compensated through his positive
engagement with his mother. He found her letters to be educative and enjoyable, replete with
emotional feeling. Here Hess was at least able to touch the depths of the human psyche and explore

29
emotions. Such emotional and psychological insight gained through his relationship to his mother
would, however, aid him negatively in that as a young propagandist for the NSDAP during the early
1920s he was able to spot very easily emotional loopholes in others; and these he would expertly
capitalize upon using his innate knowledge of human emotion to manipulate others for the cause of
the party. In particular he would in his early-mid twenties openly experiment with propaganda,
revealing his views on anti-Semitism and on socialism in his personal letters to both parents and
family relations, especially two cousins, Milly Kleinmann and Gret Georg.

Sharing intellectual ideas with his mother first brought Hess’ attention to pre1914 developments in
nationalism, imperialism, economic rivalry and social and political conflict. As educator Klara
Hess was herself undergoing a process of learning as she familiarized herself with the news of the
day through a compulsive reading of the press. She strove tirelessly to grasp the conflicting forces
helping to shape the world. She inculcates in her eldest son an awareness of responsibilities. She
educates him by drawing his attention to his younger siblings: Alfred, his dearest younger brother,
three years younger than himself [Alfred was born in Alexandria in 1897]; and his young baby-
sister Gretel, born to the family, also in Alexandria, in 1908. Seeing the family as one clearly
shaped unit despite the obstacle of geographical distance [both Hess and Alfred were sent away to
Germany for their formal education] remained the determined resolve of Klara Hess. As the
matriarchal figure of the family she placed great emphasis on letter writing, encouraging her sons in
their correspondence. They told her of their trials and tribulations at school and of how best they
were settling in. She in return wrote of the family home, her husband’s business and of the
responsibility and values of care and hard work.

Klara Hess, a woman in her forties, wasn’t only a caring mother but also represented a
romanticized, beauteous ideal. She was in this sense the epitome of womanly virtue as perceived
by the upper-classes of the day. Always immaculately dressed and forthright in her views, her
matriarchal figure successfully combined youth, virtue and motherhood in one ideal. This would
certainly have a later effect upon Hess in terms of his perception of German womanhood as a
NSDAP politician. The influence and lasting effects of Hess’ mother upon Rudolf Hess’
ideological idealism has received little serious attention. Historians point to the overbearing
influence of Dr. Karl Haushofer and have continuously portrayed Hess as a studious figure and
follower of others, especially Hitler. The formative years of Hess, especially in the years leading up
to the First World War unveil Hess in his truest light, showing how parental influence, especially
that of his mother, helped to shape the ideological idealism of his future. In this respect Klara Hess
counts as Hess’ first and foremost ideological teacher. Her values incorporated those of the
Wilhelmine Reich, namely loyalty and commitment to the German nationalist missionary ideal, but
at a personal level her views inculcated an important sense of duty and self-sacrifice – two
important ingredients Hess would take with him into his self-styled perception of himself as the
duty-bound and dedicated NSDAP politician.

There were moments when Klara Hess wished only to escape the overbearing responsibilities she
had imposed upon herself and her way of life. These were when she just wanted the family to be
together. Her motherly instinct and love craved for the return of her two sons to the bosom of the
family home. She also looked forward to having her Rudolf at home on a more permanent basis,
for she expected like her husband to see her eldest son take over as head of the family business and
also to represent just as her husband had tirelessly done the concerns of the Auslandsdeutschen
community in Egypt. Alexandria was an exotic and bustling location and was the largest
metropolis in the Mediterranean basin. It was thought the young Hess would make his future here
and thus consolidate his close ties to his closely-knit family – a future course of history that was
never to happen. In the year preceding the outbreak of the First World War, Hess’ mother worried

30
over his future, especially over his mode of living and state of finances. It is with much relief that
she hears of his settling into a new apartment in Hamburg while undertaking the first stages of his
apprenticeship at an important international banking concern. She writes in the autumn of 1913:
“Ich freue mich für Dich über die billigere Wohnung, die Du gefunden hast. Von dem dadurch
ersparten Geld kannst Du Dir manch' anderen Genuß verschaffen.”[12]

* * *

The letters between mother and son reveal an intense intimacy. The intention was to aid Hess’
internal development, but such intimacy also gave rise to the expression of more negative and
neurotic feelings of insecurity. In this vein Hess begins to show feelings of inner turmoil. He
admits wanting to improve his appearance, especially through a fashionable hair style. He wants to
think of himself as a Bohemian. One of his earlier attempts to look arty, however, earned a severe
rebuke from his mother. On that occasion she reminded him never again to have such an
inappropriate hairstyle and lectured him on how he should present himself, writing: “Früher, wie
Du von Godesberg ankamst, hattest Du immer eine Art Künstlermähne, und die hatte ich
abschreckend in Erinnerung.” [13] Klara Hess’ preferences regarding one’s looks unfortunately
contributed to her son's troubled state of mind. Her recommendations grew more forceful over
pedantic details. Once again in relation to his hair she writes: “Die Großstadtfriseure frisieren
sicher je nach dem betreffenden Gesicht, geschmackvoll und modern. Geigelt ist das
Fürchterlichste, das ich mir denken kann. Die Hauptsache ist eine freie Stirn, ob Scheitel oder nicht
ist ja ganz gleich.”[14] Reinforcing her views further, Klara Hess turns to educative matters and
informs her son: “Du möchtest ja Arabisch weiter studieren, wenn es auch schwer ist. Papa sagt,
man brauche die Sprache des Landes immer nötiger jetzt, als früher.”[15]

Hess, in response, disguises the actual truth of his young life in Hamburg. He had become more
interested in exploring how to enjoy pleasure rather than work. He pretends he is studying hard
when in actual fact he contemplated more often than not his leisure time even at work in the office.
He felt attracted to the company of young people whom he wanted to know, but couldn’t identify
with on account of his awkwardness. This was because Hess had been previously inculcated with
the firm responsible views of his parents, which represented their generation and not his. The
generational divide was one that needn’t have influenced Hess so negatively. The opportunity arose
for him to decide what was best in his interests.

When one considers his nature and closeted upbringing in a close-knit family and a boarding school
it is no wonder that the attraction of hedonism and of being a free spirit represented alluring
distractions, which, however, were not in conformity with the kind of person he was in his essence:
loving, kind hearted and family oriented. What he should have done is to have invested his time
and energy more into his parents and family. In this way he would have thus reciprocated the love
they had shown him. Hess felt undoubtedly much happier in the role of the cherished son on whom
his family pinned their future hopes. Instead he let himself become distracted by his male peers:
apprentices, students and artists living out their Bohemian existences in boulevard coffee houses.
Hess succumbs to peer-pressure in turning against the responsibilities of his work, which he begins
from early 1913 to arrogantly dismiss. At times he even expressed an arrogant attitude,
complaining of boredom. Writing of his dissatisfaction, which was an adopted pose borrowed from
young fops he tells his parents: “Im Geschäft ist mit meiner Verladungsabteilung nicht allzu viel zu
tun.”[16]

Hess begins in the course of 1913 to describe to his mother examples of his socializing soirées and
of his afternoon outings. These, however, left him unfulfilled. His letters reveal a frustrated youth

31
who is unable to appreciate the fun his peers participate in; and he reveals an acute concern
regarding his sexual inhibitions. The opposite sex fascinates him, but he feels awkward in regard to
communicating in female company. He retreats into a caricature carbon-copy of his Bohemian
friends, and at twenty years of age feels alone despite being amidst the company of his ‘enchanting’
crowd. He begins to portray the hallmarks of a lonely observer unable to make the right
connections. While others enjoy themselves Hess watches and relates what he sees to his mother,
giving her, however, the false impression that he is enjoying himself too. His description of an
outing to ‘Alsterpark’, a place in the countryside not too far from Hamburg, reinforces this
impression of Hess as the lonely observer. [17]

Estranged from his peers, Hess writes exuberantly to compensate for his lack of interaction with
others. He describes the scene perfectly, but he isn’t an actor in this drama – he is just a fly-on-the-
wall observer, telling his mother:

“(...) Sonnabend fuhren wir bis Fuhlsbüttel, wo wir gegen ½11 Uhr anlangten. Dort übernachteten wir und
fuhren in aller Frühe, trotz des Regens, das Alstertal weiter hinauf. Ließen uns durchschleusen und lagerten
mittags an einem schönen Platz, da die Sonne inzwischen durchgekommen war. Essen hatten wir in
unglaublichen Mengen mitgenommen. (...) Auf großen Kochern haben wir gekocht. Bouillon, Beefsteak,
Gemüse. Ich bin schon (ein) perfekter Koch. - Fluß ab ging es in rascher Fahrt. Haben zusammen etwa 70
km zurückgelegt. Auf halber Strecke ist der 'Alsterpark', dort tranken wir Kaffee, aßen unser'n Kuchen. Ein
schönes Tanzlokal ist dort, in dem sich alle Paddler treffen. Auch junge Damen aus den besten Familien
sind dort, paddeln alle fleißig mit, oder tun wenigstens so. Alles ist im Sportanzug, unten weiß, oben bunt
gestreifte Jacken, der Hals frei. Sieht beim Tanzen sehr nett aus (...).”[18]

Hess’ fascination for female beauty reflects inwardly a deep love for his mother, who represents his
beauteous ideal. In April, 1913, he found a girl he thought best resembled her in character rather
than in looks. Her name was Lena Remy, whom he had met at the Hamburg Tennis and Hockey
club, where he regularly played at weekends.[19] Hess confesses his secret love to his mother, but
unfortunately he becomes too preoccupied about his looks. He thinks he ought to win social
acceptance from his peers, but the edifice of his belief begins to crack. He confesses to both his
parents how he feels he can no longer compete with the social pressure being applied against him
through the hedonistic lives of his immediate circle. He tries to dress like them, wearing the same
summer suits. He writes:

“Meine Sportbetätigung ist nicht übermäßig groß. Hauptsächlich treib' ich ihn ja sonntags. Ich kann auf
jeden Fall nie wochentags, wie meine Herren Kameraden, die Nächte hindurch in den 'Etablissemangs', wie
man sie hier nennt, sind und das Taschengeld und mehr dort verputzen.”[20]

He reveals the extent to which he is becoming unnerved by the ways of his Bohemian set,
especially by their overspending. He becomes conscious of the fact that he can’t keep pace with
their financial outgoings. Such recognition only serves to confirm his isolation as he knows that his
lack of money prevents him from leading the kind of lives they have.

Nevertheless, Hess dissatisfaction, his inability to lead a daring Bohemian life, his worries over
money and his conscious awareness of a growing generational divide between his peers and the
traditional mindset of his parents leaves him paralyzed in thought and action; so much so that he
switches off from his work. In fact he gives more attention to seeing what is wrong with his job and
indulges in arrogant views. Thinking he possesses insight into the working ways of international
capitalism he feels that aspects of stupidity obstruct the true nature of commerce. He becomes
disillusioned over working ethics and condescendingly dismisses business protocol. He feels
constrained by conventions, telling his father:

32
“(...) Mit einem Telegramm hatten wir neulich Pech. In unserem Privatcode steht der Satz: 'No reply in three
days considered accepted', der an ein Strohgeflechts-Angebot von Japan angehängt war. Die Post hat mit
dem Antwort-Telegramm gebummelt, und so haben wir gekauft, was wir gar nicht wollten. Da ist eben
Sparsamkeit am falschen Plätze. Bei wichtigen Aufträgen soll man ein Paar Mark nicht sparen, sondern
klipp und klar depeschieren, statt sich auf Kabel zu verlassen, besonders wenn sie über Rußland gehen. - Die
halbverkrachte Schiffahrtslinie wird glücklich aufgelöst, nachdem wir das Glück hatten, noch vor dem
Zusammenbruch des A. Schaaffhausenschen Bankvereins, chinesische Staatspapiere mit viel Profit zu
verkaufen; durch obigen Verein.”[21]

Hess displays a facetious attitude that his father would never have shown. He reveals thereby an
indifference towards the collapse of a fellow banking concern. His only concern is to emphasize
the stupidity inherent in business and argues profits are not the result of accumulated hard work but
of luck and chance; a view his father repudiated bearing mind that Fritz Hess identified profit-
making with a sincere business protocol. [22]

The conflict in Hess’ persona between his personal and emerging adult viewpoints and those of his
parents betray his lack of cohesion. His failure to succeed in his apprenticeship and the distraction
of a false ‘Bohemian’ lifestyle, accentuated by the pressurizing factors of his peers, provided all the
ingredients that would lead to personal crisis. This occurred In June 1914 when Hess suffered
under the effects of depression, wanting just to leave Hamburg and return home. His parents,
brother and sister were making preparations for their annual summer return to the family summer
home in Reicholdsgrün, just outside Bayreuth. Hess had been willing to live a false life of
socializing with evening soirees and boating parties. Now the façade cracked and the young man
wanted to be free of this falsehood. Yet at the same time he displayed an unfortunate neurotic
obsession for his appearance, especially his hair. He tells his parents in a letter home: “Zu Eurer
Beruhigung kann ich Euch sagen, dass ich keine 25cm lange Mähne träge. Für Reicholdsgrün werd'
ich mir die Haare überhaupt ganz abnehmen lassen.” The letter addressed primarily to his mother
must have shocked his father. Fritz Hess would not have understood such neurotic character
weakness. Perhaps Hess’ father may have overlooked such an outburst once, but what his son’s
obsessions reveal was a basic lack of emotional security. Hess hides behind the language of
concern; a neurotic concern for himself. He writes further in his letter: “Hier gilt aber eine
scheitelose Friseur für jüngere Leute als fein. Auf Bällen in Winter ist es geradezu unmöglich, ohne
Scheitel zu erscheinen. Ich trag eben einen zurückgekämmten Scheitel; man kann ja eine freie Stirn
damit vereinen.”[23]

Hess’ neurotic obsessions, however, soon gave way to arrogance. Concern with himself led to his
preoccupation with his own views rather than of others. This was particularly apparent while in the
company of close family. On one occasion, after being invited to the home of his favorite aunts,
Theaga and Agnes, [24] he releases himself from his frail confidence and vulnerability and indulges
in egotistical opinions, gorging at the same time his aunts home-made cake and downing excessive
cups of tea. It was easier for him to air his views and to feel a sense of importance in front of these
two women. In terms of practicalities and of leading a responsible adult existence, Hess
significantly failed. Without private financial means he continued to lead the life of a self-styled
dandy and decided to lodge in an expensive Munich hotel knowing the bill would be paid for by his
father. Opinionated, selfish and emotionally insecure Hess was a world away from the shy diligent
schoolboy he had once been. [25]

33
1.2 First Political Thoughts

Hess learned his first political lessons in autumn 1912 after his mother had written to him about the
Italian invasion of Tripoli and Cyrenaica.[26] These neglected, poor Turkish backwaters had
escaped the attention of the marauding Great Powers, Britain and France. Italy, a late-contender
with Great Power pretensions, wanted to imitate her more illustrious Great Power neighbor France.
The Third Republic had amassed a large colonial empire behind her image of renown and
diplomacy, but simultaneously revealed the symptoms of a European malaise craving greatness and
influence – characteristics Karl Marx pilloried in his deferential treatment of Napoleon III and of
the Republic in his prolific analysis, The Eighteenth Brumaire [Penguin Publishers, London 1982].
Ernst Nolte reveals, too, [Der Fascismus in seiner Epoche, München 1964] how bürgerlich wealth
created the conditions for fervent nationalism and the pursuit of adventurous foreign policies.
European ruling elites aimed to divert public attention away from domestic social-class
antagonisms through imperial adventures. The elites – church, monarchy and industry – exploited
nationalism to bind the middle classes closer to their side and offered a contract based on social
compromise at home and a unified nationalistic front abroad. This prevailing attitude of the times
resulted in an ‘Age of social-Darwinist Imperialism’ [See Eric Hobsbawn, Der Imperialismus in
seiner Zeitalter, München 2003] during which moral ethics became duplicitous reflecting the false
consciousness of modernizing European societies. Nolte argues this set the conditions for the
outbreak of the First World War.[27]

The pre1914 ‘Age of Imperialism’ identified with patriarchy, welfare, empire and free trade.[28]
Hess' parents as Auslandsdeutsche enjoyed the privilege of being a part of the European colony in
Alexandria. They owned their own wealthy home in the city's salubrious suburban quarter.[29]
Hess’ father managed textile factories and in the autumn of 1913 bought a profitable coaling
station. Alexandria was the fastest growing metropolis in the Mediterranean. Its fortunes as a city
were enhanced by its geographical location close to the Nile and the Suez Canal. Ships from
around the globe docked in its harbor. It became a nodal point for international commerce. Hess’
father viewed his enterprises there with great zeal and optimism. His own father had settled in
Egypt after emigrating from Austrian Lombardy in the 1860s;[30] a legacy that inspired Fritz Hess
to continue the pioneering attitude of the family tradition. In some ways Hess' father saw himself
and the family representing the missionary work of Weltpolitik as a privileged
Auslandsdeutscher.[31]

Having been brought up initially in his parents' exotic Egyptian location, Hess would sometimes
think of himself as an ‘Egyptian’ and would emphasize his German expatriate roots in order to
impress his fellows.[32] Nevertheless, his schooling at Bad Godesberg inculcated into his growing
young mind views and values representing the Wilhelmine Reich: namely loyalty to state, church
and Kaiser. Such reactionary bürgerlich nationalism of the pre1914 era helped to fashion the
national-liberal and social-Darwinist imperialism of his age.[33] He was emotionally comforted by
his mother's letters which reinforced the prevailing modes of thought expected in a young German
gentleman being educated for the task of maintaining family prestige and national pride. In
Germany the young Hess had to teach himself self-reliance, discipline and respect for his teachers,
who gave him his nationalist Prussian-German education. Some fellow pupils were to join the
military as did his close friend, Richard Wunderling.[34] It was the trend for Auslandsdeutsche, as
it was for the British colonials living in India, to send their children to boarding schools in the
mother country. This generally led to a disciplined formality and emotional repression, but not so
in Hess, who didn't suffer unduly from his boarding school days.[35]

34
Klara Hess doesn't write anything of political significance until her letter regarding her
condemnation of Italian Great Power pretensions following the conquest of Cyrenaica. As an astute
international observer she was able to recognize the Turkish Empire as the ‘sick man of Europe’
[despite the partial success the ‘Young Turk Revolution’ had brought to the Turkish nation]. She
feared the European powers would carve-up what would remain of the Turkish carcass should the
Sultan be deposed [something the ‘Young Turks’ under Enver Pasha threatened to do].[36] She
was against the nationalism of the Christian Balkan peoples, who in her view threatened to upset the
delicate balance of European power. † The Ottoman Empire had become increasingly fragile after
the first Balkan war [despite the Treaty of London signed by the Great Powers in 1912].[37] The
second Balkan war [1913] complicated things further, with a defeated Turkey joining her former
enemies in the Serb-led coalition against Bulgaria. The Balkan kingdoms, small and insignificant,
became important pawns in the European chess game. Austria-Hungary and Russia were the two
great antagonists, with the former drawing close to Bulgaria and the latter supporting Orthodox
Serbia. [38]

Klara Hess expressed a chauvinistic attitude towards the Serbs. She regarded them along with other
‘lesser peoples,’ including the Arabs, as unruly. [39] Her wrath could also attack those with great
pretensions such as the Italians. Turkish weakness became glaringly apparent as fervent Balkan
nationalism, as well as the nationalism of westernized Arabs, felt inspired by rebellion against the
yolk of colonial rule. [40] Hess’ mother regarded the Italian invasion of Tripoli and Cyrenaica,
however, as responsible for the outburst of Arab nationalism throughout North Africa, which
sparked off riots in Alexandria and endangered the European colonies there. The cause of the
rioting also reflected how intellectuals [in this case westernized, educated Arabs] could combine
their ideas with the irrational impetus of the masses – an early lesson in political action Hess
acquired from the observations of his mother. In an inflationary and defeated Germany between
1918 and 1923 a more radical combination of intellectual ideas with the impetus of the masses
would lead to revolutionary politics both on the left and right. [41]

Another letter Klara Hess wrote to her son, which had a decisive political impact, was one dated
28th June 1914 in the aftermath of the assassination at Sarajevo. The Habsburg heir to the throne,
Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophie, were shot at close quarters by the nineteen year
old Bosnian Serb nationalist, Gavrilo Princip.[42] Klara blames the deed on a clique of Serb army
officers operating from Belgrade, who had trained Serb students in terrorist activity.[43] She reads
avidly, although not without becoming influenced by the chauvinistic nationalism of the times. She
had not yet assumed the hallmarks of an independent thinker as she held back her interest in
women’s rights and the promotion of female intellect. She believed at the time in a sincere status
quo regarding the existing social relations between men and women. She didn’t want at first to
dislodge the patriarchal position of her husband, which she later succeeded in doing during the First
World War. As far as her views on foreign affairs were concerned she was against a redrawing of
borders in the Balkans. Klara remained true to her Bismarck maxim that the region “wasn't worth
the bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier.”[44] She thought that the European balance of power

† An interesting depiction of Balkan Nationalism and of the Christian Armenian struggle in Asia Minor is a tale that
would later grasp international attention on the publication of Franz Werfel’s Die vierzig Tage des Musa Dagh, [See 15.
Auflage, Frankfurt a. M., Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Mai 2005] in 1933/34. This depiction of the suffering of a
people at the hands of Young Turk nationalism would in Werfel’s mind act as new genre of prolific fiction in which he
would unwittingly incorporate the aspect of prophesy. The novel would serve as a parable for the future German
economic, racial and physical annihilation of the Jews. Werfel, a German Jew would see his work refuted by the
Nazis. Nevertheless, it serves as a reminder of how fraught ethnic tensions were in the Near and Middle East; an
experience not outside of the Hess-family who themselves would experience the Arab rioting of 1912 and grow wary of
inter-ethnic hatreds between the Moslem and Christian populations of Alexandria.

35
could only be maintained as long as the royal houses of Europe stood at the apex of society,
offering the masses their example of Christian piety and moral ethics. Her eulogizing of Kaiser
Wilhelm II reveals her personal belief in the uprightness of the House of Hohenzollern. On one
occasion she describes her joy as she personally witnesses the Kaiser aboard his vessel while
returning from a cruise in the Adriatic. Having just arrived in Venice herself, she tells her son: “Bei
der Einfahrt kamen wir ganz nah an der Hohenzollern [45] vorbei, der Kaiser beantwortete den
Gruß der Schleswig, Hand an der Mütze, bis unser Schiff vorbei war.” Her admiration for the
German Emperor extended to other European royal households, including the Habsburg's. Full of
rage, therefore, when she hears of the assassination at Sarajevo, she exclaims: “Wir sind alle ganz
empört über die Ermordung des Erzherzogs Ferdinand und seiner Gemählin.”[46]

Klara's other great concern of the times was socialism; something she didn't understand. She didn't
recognize that socialism had undergone a period of reformism since 1890.[47] This had dampened
the call for proletarian revolution. The SPD under the leadership of Wilhelm Liebknecht saw
revolution in social terms through an improvement in wages, education and conditions.[48] Hess'
mother underestimated the patriotic intent of the SPD, whose party reformers such as Eduard
Bernstein and Karl Kautsky [49] represented the cause for reform.[50] She ignored this and
entertained instead nightmare fantasies of Jacobean Revolution. This was one reason why she
confused the assassination in Sarajevo with an abject fear of socialist revolution.[51] She saw the
masses as a vulnerable rabble open to manipulation from political students and terrorists. Her
views of Serbia had been seriously affected by the events of 1903 when the Obrenovic ruling
dynasty was murdered by nationalist army officers. This had offended her sense of bürgerlich
propriety and had caused her passion for the royal houses of Europe to soar.[52] The twenty year
old Hess became subject to the intense patriotism of his mother. She repeated what she had read in
the German and Austrian newspapers, whose articles called out for retribution. Serbia was to be
made to pay for her crime and provide Austria with an indemnity. National-liberal newspapers
such as Die Vossische Zeitung became caught up in the nationalist spiral of revenge. Following the
message of its lead editorial Klara Hess demands the Serbs must be punished, telling her son: “Zur
Strafe sollten sie das ganze Volk unterjochen.”[53]

In contrast Hess was quite laid back about the Sarajevo Affair. He was trying to reach out for a
better perspective on life, knowing soon that he would be rejoining his parents, his younger brother
and his little sister in the family summer home at Reicholdsgrün. Hess thought he could escape the
throes of personal crisis there. His obsession for the Bohemian life he had led in Hamburg,
especially under the wayward influence of so-called friends such as a musician called Haßkerl
[presumably a nickname] had contributed to his sense of disappointment and anxiety.[54] He had
grown tired of his job and had wanted to seek comfort within the family home. One of his last
peacetime letters, written in July, 1914, conveys his disenchantment with his employment, although
his words burst with sudden optimism as he asks his parents to send on his love to Alfred and
Gretel.

The ‘Sarajevo Affair’ brought Hess out of his introspection. He appears in another letter dating
from that ill-fated summer to have slipped into his father's calm self-assuredness.[55] His father's
character trait contrasted with his mother's passionate emotionality, as he echoes his father’s
rational approach to international affairs believing in “die Vernunft der Menschheit” (the quality of
human rationalism). Such optimism reflects a character improvement in Hess just as the world is
about to go to ruin. Having passed the test of a personal crisis – as a result of his Hamburg
experience – this young twenty year old was seemingly just holding things together when events

36
finally burst asunder: on 1st August, 1914, the crowds gathered on Munich's Odeonplatz to hear the
latest news. Russia had mobilized her armed strength and German forces had put into operation the
Schlieffen Plan: the attack on Russia’s ally, France. As these events unfolded, and ended an era,
Hess headed straight to Munich from Reicholdsgrün to see what Fate could bring him.

1. 3 Patriotic Volunteer – Munich 1914.

On arriving in Munich Hess surprisingly avoided the crowds. He checked into an expensive hotel,
using his father's money – his Bohemian habits hadn't quite left him – and went to visit his aunts,
Theaga and Agnes.[56] These two spinsters, living in one of the city's salubrious suburbs, found
him to be enchanting, while he manipulated his first fruitful war audience and enjoyed his aunts’
attentiveness boasting with high opinions of himself and of German war mobilization.

One of Hess' difficulties, emerging into adulthood, had been his lack of communication with the
opposite sex. His inability to talk confidently to young women contrasted with the way with which
he exuded in confidence in front of his favorite aunts. His main contact with the female world had
come via his mother. [57] Despite this there was no reason for Hess to have exhibited particular
emotional hang-ups because throughout his childhood he had been fortunate enough to have spent
time with two of his female cousins similar in age. He and the girls had enjoyed the summer
grounds of Reicholdsgrün during the family’s annual return to Germany each summer. He would
continue to remain in contact with these cousins, Gret Georg and Milly Kleinmann, as they grew
older. During his early political career he would expose them to his anti-Semitic and political
missionary zeal. [58]

One could argue that Hess’ arrival in Hamburg at the age of eighteen and his introduction via his
Bohemian circle to pretty women had upset his personal equilibrium. In female company he grew
awkward, preferring to observe at distant quarters rather than form friendships. This accounts for
his sensitive descriptions in his letters to his mother of the way he perceived women. His young
roaming eyes admired their youthful beauty, but he lacked the art of communication with which to
transfer this wonder to speech. He thus remained vexed and sexually isolated. He wasn’t free from
this self-imposed awkwardness until he met his future wife, Ilse Proehl, at the age of twenty-six.
Hess disguised his frustrations during his visit to Theaga and Agnes, in whose company he
bragged. These two old spinsters saw Hess as a grandson figure and they pandered to his charms
and encouraged his opinions. Hess in contrast felt relaxed in their company, but this encouraged
him to pose with a wise young head on optimistic shoulders; so much so that in a letter home to his
parents he comments on his initial enlisting into a Bavarian heavy cavalry regiment with the
curiosity of one who was performing a good deed for the nation. Following the initial excitement
of registering with the Kaiser’s cavalry, he soon writes to his parents: “Hier ist es riesig interessant
natürlich. Freu' mich furchtbar auf die nächsten Tage, reiten lernen, Schießübungen usw. (...) [59]

Hess' actual enlisting into the royal heavy cavalry had been his father's idea. Fritz Hess had once
again seen an opportunity of imposing his expectations upon his son. Hess’ father, anxious to
increase the family’s status, believed there was no better way of achieving this other than through
his eldest son’s participation in the war as a volunteer in one of the Kaiser’s elitist regiments –
namely in the cavalry. Knowing an old acquaintance, Ludwig Nägelsbach [1851-1922] [60],
former district commander of the Munich garrison, [61] he set his sights on opening doors for his
son’s future military war service. As a first step he secured an appointment for Rudolf with the
elderly ex-garrison commander that culminated in an interview enhancing Hess’ prospects. It ought
to be pointed out that not everyone could serve in the cavalry, a protected privilege for the sons of
the nobility. Admittance, without noble status, depended on social connections which Hess’ father

37
seemed to have; and this left Hess with the increased likelihood of securing for himself a
prestigious position with the prospect of becoming an officer. Commenting upon his encounter
with the elderly Nägelsbach, Hess writes: “Dort wurde ich als alter Bekannter sehr nett
aufgenommen, soll auch bald wiederkommen. Er schrieb mir ein paar Zeilen als Empfehlung.
Auch gab er mir sonstige Ratschläge.”[62]

Had Hess followed the inclination of his father and served as a soldier in the Kaiser’s cavalry his
life would perhaps, even at this point, have taken on a course more in conformity with his true self.
Nevertheless, service in the cavalry may have resulted in Hess’ premature death for in the summer
of 1914 losses experienced by the cavalry were extremely high as both sides in the new world war
conflict suddenly learned that the exuberance of cavalry charges failed ignominiously in front of the
rata-tat-tat of machine gun fire. Had this occurred Hess’ parents, like countless others, would have
mourned the loss of their eldest and dearest. Not only this Hess would have more than likely died
content, as an enthusiastic volunteer in search of war romanticism; and with the confidence of a
privileged cavalryman. This though didn’t happen. Just as Hess threw aside his father’s ‘Great
Expectations’ in regard to failing to fulfill the expected standards in business and commerce, so too
did Hess throw aside again these expectations as he rebelled against his father, rejected the cavalry
and joined the infantry; a personal decision he thought was giving him more independence and
control over his life, but in actual fact represented a retrograde step and was the cause of many of
his disappointments over the course of the war.

At twenty years of age there was a side of Hess’ character wishing to free itself from parental
control. Hess’ ego became caught in ever increasing spirals. He hadn't thought directly of
disobeying his parents when asking for more money to finance his Bohemian life, but the bitter
disappointments of those Hamburg days, especially at the hands of “die Herren Kameraden,”[63]
left him more emotionally dependent on his parents and close relations. That’s why during the
early days of patriotic firmament Hess doesn’t spend time alongside his own age group, but prefers
instead to seek out the company of his responsible and older relatives. He shuns the patriotic mob
and decides to visit, in civil circumstances, his dear uncle, Alfred Hess [1876-1946], the brother of
his father. [64] The meeting took place in Munich's Parkhotel. Hess then visited other relatives,
the Bauers and this visit, too, gave him the veneer of a soaring confidence. [65] On 6th August,
1914, in compliance with his father’s wishes, he enlisted in the 1. Schweres Reiterregiment and was
contracted on a one year voluntary (“Einjähriger Freiwilliger”) [66] basis. His new accommodation
became the regimental barracks on the Oberwiesenfeld, a place later to become synonymous with
Hitler’s SA, which used the area for a demonstration of its powerful intent through excessive
parades, marching and drill.

As image and status count for much in the bürgerlich world Hess momentarily succumbed to his
parents' whims, writing of his enthusiasm for the royal cavalry and telling them: “Bin nun endlich
aufgenommen bei den Schweren Reitern. Die körperliche Untersuchung ist vollkommen
befriedigend ausgefallen.” In contrast to other future Nazis who joined the colors in 1914 there
wasn’t the same invocation of and expression of enthusiasm for Wilhelmine ideals as in 1870/71.
Indeed someone like Hitler believed the war to be a solution to the process of social and cultural
decay, which he felt were the dominant features of pre1914 society. Hitler sees in Mein Kampf the
war as a new rallying point for the youth of the nation and as an opportunity for the nation to forge
itself with a new purpose and vigor. Hitler’s remembrance of the 1914-18 war in Landsberg prison
in 1924 would conjure up his youthful vision of war romanticism and of young men happily
marching off for the Fatherland. In truth Hess never had this experience, not arriving at the front
until October, 1914, by which time much had happened and the war of movement had stagnated

38
into trench warfare. Hitler by contrast, serving as a runner in a Bavarian infantry regiment felt the
‘baptism of fire’ as he participated in the first ferocious battle against the British at Ypres.

Hess begins the war with enthusiasm limited to the Munich barrack room. Frustrated by not being
immediately involved in the war as he would have preferred led to his feelings of disillusionment,
especially as he thought the conflict might be over before he had even a chance to participate.
Writing at first optimistically he tells his parents: “Morgen 7 Uhr geh' ich in die Kaserne und werd'
wohl gleich eingekleidet.”[67] He can’t wait to wear the uniform of the cavalry, but he soon
realizes there are additional expenses that have to be met such as riding boots, a saddle and a finely
tailored uniform for ceremonial occasions – expenses Hess expected his father to fulfill; and Fritz
Hess would have done this willingly for he had wanted so desperately to see his son and the family
social status elevated. These personal calculations came to nothing, however, after Hess decided he
could wait no longer for the completion of the enlistment process. Disappointed, he writes to his
parents: “nahm an, dass bis zum 15. August die Schweren Reiter im Feld Verluste hätten. Obwohl
sie aber dieser Tage im Gefechte waren, gab es noch keinen Platz. Von Tag zu Tag, von Stunde zu
Stunde wird aber eine Riesenschlacht erwartet. Daraufhin werden dann neue Freiwillige
eingestellt. Lieber Gott!” [68]

Hess basically grew impatient as a result of his being unable to serve at the front immediately. He
decided to go against his father’s wishes, and buoyed up by the self confidence he had acquired
through his encounters with Uncle Alfred, his aunts and the Bauers, he plumbed for enlistment in
the artillery, which had been advertised as the new technological arm of the military. [69] On the
17th August, 1914, Fritz Hess wrote to his son unaware of his change of heart and enlistment in the
artillery. He believed him to be still waiting for his call up to the front as a cavalry serviceman and
was excited by the prospect of his son soon becoming an officer, for Fritz Hess recognized that the
cavalry looked after its own and assisted promotion for social elitist reasons whenever possible.
This is why Fritz Hess cannot contain his excitement as he writes: “Wir sind sehr gespannt, ob Du
Dich leicht in die neuen Verhältnisse einfindest und freuen uns über unseren mutigen, schneidigen
Buben!”[70] Fritz Hess writes on behalf of his wife as well as for himself. This represents a
complete turn-around from the family arrangement that had existed prior to 1914 when his wife had
represented the voice of parental concerns and wishes. Now, the head of the family envisaged
playing a more pertinent role in his son’s life while his wife took momentarily, and in accordance
with his patriarchal views, a backseat.

The 17th August ranks as a significant date in Hess’ life. Firstly, on this day he rejected the cavalry
and his father’s wishes in preference for his own choice: that of serving in the artillery. Secondly,
this day held momentous consequences as Hess on 17th August, 1924, exactly ten years after his
original refuting of his father’s advice, decided on yet upon another new course: to work more
closely with Hitler. In a letter addressed to his father Hess tries to convince him that the future
redemption of Germany lies in Hitler’s hands. Hess sees his role in an advisory capacity, thus
paving the way for his becoming Hitler’s official Private Secretary. Thirdly, the 17th August, 1987†

† For those interested in conspiracy theories it has become acceptable to think that Hess may have in fact been
murdered as part of a Cold War espionage attempt to prevent his living to see a reunited Germany. The potentiality for
German reunification had become, under First Secretary of the CPSU, Mikhail Gorbachev [1931- *], open to
consideration and marked a new political agenda for change. It is the aim of this biography [which focuses on Hess’
career up until May, 1941] not to conjecture over the cause of Hess’ death. It is merely of interest to show that in
spiritual and emotional terms the very date – 17th August – held great significance in Hess’ life. Had he not rejected the
cavalry on this day in 1914 and had he not drawn himself closer to Hitler on this day as preparation for his future post
as Hitler’s Secretary, then the course of his life may have been entirely different. Viewed in this light the act of his
death – on 17th August, 1987 – must count as one of remorse for past failings. The suggestion is that, whether
conscious of the significance of the date or not, Hess decided to take his own life. It is because his entire history and

39
the course of his life wrests uncannily on this date that it appears fruitless and insignificant to suppose that he was ever
murdered. Talk of his possible murder only helps to invigorate the post-war Hess-Myth in the hands of the European
neo-Nazi movement. [71]

is quite uncannily the date of Hess’ death at the age of ninety-three in Spandau prison.

* * *

In terms of his political thought Hess didn't express himself imaginatively, preferring in 1914, as
most male bürgerlich volunteers did, to follow the nationalist cause out of a sense of a shared
patriotic romanticism.[72] There exists a particular legend, one tied closely to German History
rather than to a particular personality, and that is the myth of general war mobilization in August,
1914, which wasn’t as smooth and wasn’t as jubilant as authors such as Ernst Jünger later claimed.
Jünger, a national-conservative author and an experienced former officer who had led storm troops,
saw the First World War as an earth-shattering event that bonded men’s mind closer to the concept
of spiritual and national regeneration through conflict. The nature of war, its innate impersonality
and obtuse feature of death dominated Jünger’s writings. His views were colored by personal
reminisces based on his war romanticism. Hitler, too, would share to an extent in these
indulgences, although he would express these with a much less gifted hand. The truth is, however,
is that the mobilization of 1914 wasn’t smooth and that certain frustrations and concerns were
expressed by different social classes. The crowds on Munich’s Odeonplatz on the 1st August, 1914,
were certainly dominated by young, often single bürgerlich men wearing boaters and other summer
hats. The absence of significant working-class jubilation and the hesitancy of the SPD, which until
the very last minute worked for a favorable peace with their French counterparts, suggest war
enthusiasm wasn’t so widespread.

Hess represents an interesting individual at this time because one can see in his young life the
frustrations and different concerns of the masses being identified in himself. He is an example of
the macrocosm of volunteers who didn’t know what to expect of the coming war. Hence, a smooth
right of passage into the war was often denied many volunteers and this was certainly the case
regarding Hess, who began the volunteer process with the cavalry, moved to the artillery and
ultimately enlisted in the infantry. This reveals not only the indecision and the consequences of a
young man unable to grasp how he should serve his nation correctly, but also this carousel behavior
of his from cavalry to artillery to infantry reflects, too, how each of the services of the imperial
German army acted as competing organizations with no clear unity. If anything what contributed
further to the cumbersome mobilization process were indeed the values of nationalist duty and
honor that had been inscribed into Hess’ nature as a schoolboy.

Significantly, Hess doesn’t acknowledge the role of his school teachers in forming his patriotic
outlook. Yet they certainly contributed to this. Hess thinks at the time of the war’s outbreak that he
is making his own informed personal decisions and that his choice of considering the artillery and
then the infantry reflect his own will. His choosing of the infantry must be seen as a consequence
of the idealistic notions, based on war-camaraderie and war heroism, which he had been inculcated
with as a result of the authoritative influence of his schoolmasters, especially a certain Herr
Eulemann. In looking at Hess’ early school years and letters home one detects how much in awe he
was of his teachers, whom he greatly admired. Herr Eulemann was a Games Teacher and one who
impressed his innocent nature with the virtues of laying down one’s life for one’s fellow. Such an
invocation of Christian piety combined with the ethos of soldierly comradeship reinforced the
nationalist solidarity of the Wilhelmine epoch. It is interesting for this reason to note that Hess’
interest in schools, especially the National Socialist “Gemeindeschule”, were to follow the
Wilhelmine model. At a subtle level many of the personal missionary obligations Hess undertook

40
to change society as a NSDAP politician, draw upon those connections he found existing between
war, sacrifice and youth, which had been germinating as ideas within his young mind from around
the age of fifteen. In an early schoolboy letter from Bad Godesberg he tells of how Herr Eulemann
had arranged a simulated war scenario for his class and for his school mates. Each boy had been
expected to run and relieve [“bring to live”] via a touch anyone of his team who had been “killed”
by the opposing touch of the opposition, even if this attempt was to be at the cost of one’s own
precious life as marked down by the parameters of the game. Once touched the boy concerned had
to fall and lie still as if “dead.” The competitive spirit of the game induced the boys to work with
comradeship. The activity was one reflecting the teaching of selflessness and of self-sacrifice for
the ‘common good’. It reflected, too, a romanticized version of conflict expected to be upheld by
Hess and his generation.

Hess thought his enlistment in the artillery would be the quickest way of becoming fully engaged in
the war, but he soon realized the error of his mistake. He joined the 7th Field Artillery Regiment on
24th August, 1914, and within a short time adopted a condescending attitude. This change reflects
once again the haphazard aspects of the mobilization process, as recruits often had to relearn what
they knew after new recruits had joined their ranks. This gave the training a decidedly uninteresting
and mechanical aspect. Hess quickly became disenchanted. When a fellow recruit arrived from
Hamburg named Friede Hess became inadvertently distracted by the reminder of his days in that
city. Instead of reaching an honest conclusion about himself he reinvented his persona so as to
conform with the attractive views of Friede who welcomed the war as an escape from the apparent
monotony of bürgelich and urban life. The idea that Hess found himself ‘regenerated’ as a
consequence of solidarity through war mobilization belongs to the myths of those times. It was
simply not true that he had left Hamburg to escape the prism of modernity in exchange for war, for
as we have seen he had initially sought family comfort at Reicholdsgrün in response to his having
undergone a mini-personal crisis.

In the company of his acquaintance from Hamburg, Hess slipped into an egotism steadily becoming
unbearable. His attempt to reinvent himself was not a solution to his conveniently forgotten self-
induced neurosis. Instead of acknowledging the need of support and of love from his parents and
siblings, he slipped into the arrogant self-belief of an aggressive, impatient volunteer wishing to
fight as soon as possible. His intelligence failed to recognize the caricature play-acting he was
steadfastedly assuming; a caricature trait that would also come to dominate his life as a NSDAP
politician when he would forget the basic rules of common decency and slip further into a neurotic
image of himself as a dedicated servant of his nation. Arguably the seeds of this peculiar craving to
serve the Fatherland in such an irresolute caricature way begin through his meeting and brief
friendship to Friede. Whereas Hess lost sight of his sensitive nature, his Hamburg companion
became more pronounced in proclaiming the general views of a ‘lost generation’ that falsely
believed war to be an antedote to an unfulfilling civilian existence. Enthused by what Friede had to
say, Hess tells his parents in a letter home about the ‘comrade’ he has met, “der vor der Hamburger
Steifheit hierher geflüchtet ist, um hier zu dienen.” [73]

As he covers up his sense of inner turmoil through patriotism, Hess runs away from himself. He
would have liked to have possessed a personal equilibrium, but he fails to recognize that the starting
point for this lies in being honest with one self. How the sudden appearance of a chance
acquaintance in Friede induces him to reinvent himself reflects the condition of his basic
unhappiness, his suppressed sexuality and his confused role as a young volunteer. He becomes
more of a caricature figure the more he becomes obsessed with the war, which is a fiction of his war
romanticism and not the serious conflict he should have seen it as. His obsessions and general
dissatisfaction cause him to make even more hasty and fateful decisions. Significantly, it would be

41
another chance acquaintance, Max Hofweber, [74] who in October, 1918, would have a similar
catastrophic effect upon Hess as Freide did in 1914, persuading him in the heat of a debate on
nationalist questions to visit the quasi-religious and nationalist secret society, the Thule
Gesellschaft, which prepared Hess’ future for joing the NSDAP.

* * *

On 12th September, 1914, Hess began his first step towards war with a surprise visit to the theater.
He saw a naturalistic drama by the playwright August Strindberg,[75] whose depiction of strong
topical social themes, and of the contradictions of an unfulfilled bürgerlich life, heightened Hess’
already abject rejection of the civilian mode of thinking as he grew more militarist. Yet the ideas
circulating in his head bore no true reflection of the actual complicated and sensitive person he
actually was, which enjoyed or wanted to enjoy the benefits of life; even to the extent that he
wished he could join the actors on the stage rather than remaining the steadfast isolated war
monger, who thought he knew better than all those around him. Returning to his thoughts about the
inefficiency of his artillery training, he condemns his superiors in a letter home to his parents,
writing: “Das Geschütz-Exerzieren klappt gar nicht, da wir alles neue Leute sind. Bei der Artillerie
müssen eben die verschiedenen Handgriffe wie im Schlaf ganz mechanisch gemacht werden, was
man nur durch monatelange Übung erreichen kann. Die Offiziere selbst sind nicht darüber klar, wie
wir in der kurzen Zeit gefechtsfähig werden sollen.”[76]

It was thought that the war would last only a few months.[77] This prevailing attitude – one
perpetuated by the jingoistic nationalist press – contributed to Hess' sense of angst as he suspected
he might miss out on the ‘big adventure’. His mother sympathized, writing, “Ich war für Dich
enttäuscht, dass Du so lange zurückgehalten wurdest. Deine junge Kraft für die Freiheit des teuren
Vaterlandes einzusetzen.”[78] Her sympathy embraced his daily concerns, as she became more
worried about the state of his personal health and safety; a motherly conviction that collided with
Klara Hess’ own sense of nationalist pride and forthrightness. On the one hand she wanted her son
to sustain himself through all trials and tribulations through a faith and commitment to God, thus
unveiling how inextricably bound her nationalism was to her personal thoughts of religiosity. There
was, however, on the other hand, still room for an expression of motherly love and humor. In
particular they shared joy over his photograph as a new recruit. She writes: “Dein Rekrutenbild ist
wunderschön, zum Lachen.” Being ever more attentive Klara adds, “Hast Du in Maßkrug
Himbeerwasser oder ähnlich Mildes?”[79] As her son’s daily needs as a soldier increased, she
wrote whatever advice came to her mind, recommending for instance how he ought to prepare the
soles of his feet: “Täglich mit Franzbranntwein waschen, soll die Haut sehr abhärten, so dass sie bei
großen Märschen nicht wund wird.”[80]

Fritz Hess, too, lends a sympathetic voice. He writes to his son personally rather than permitting
his wife to speak up for him as she had done on so many other previous occasions. One would have
thought that Hess’ father was exerting his patriarchal authority more comfortably within the context
of war. His wife had cared for the needs of his sons in terms of their education during the years of
correspondence when Rudolf and Alfred had been boarders in Bad Godesberg. With his eldest very
soon to be dispatched to the front, Fritz Hess wanted to give all the fatherly advice he could muster.
It is curious how the closest point in the relationship between father and son was momentarily
attained as Europe ‘self-destructed’ and went to war. Yet the debilitating circumstances that were
to upset their relationship and prevent it from growing healthily soon become apparent if one looks
deeper at this time of war. Interestingly, Fritz Hess has nothing to say about his son’s decision to
leave the cavalry and, soon after, the artillery. When Hess joins the infantry his father remains
supportive, but this support betrays a fundamental character flaw in the father-son relationship, for

42
at no point does Fritz Hess express his disapproval of his son’s impetuous decisions. Hess took this
as a sign of weakness and it is curious how Hess becomes more demanding of his father, asking him
for more money and for personally tailored uniforms [which at inflationary prices were not cheap].
As a lame response Fritz Hess pretends to be happy about his son’s decisions, suppressing any
actuality of his doubts through a similar dose of religiosity and nationalism as shown by his wife.
Slipping into the nationalistic ardour of the times, Fritz Hess is able to write to his eldest son with
great exultation: “Bravo! Also zur Infanterie! Halt Dich tapfer und der liebe Gott wird mit Dir
sein!”

Hess’ father underwent a tumult of contrasting emotions as he found himself squeezed between the
role of the patriarchal stereotype, which he had cast for himself through the austerity of his words,
while repressing at the same time the suppleness and sensitivity of his genuine feelings as a father,
which grew more distant and became in actual fact the first casualty of the war as his son’s absence,
his slipping into silent melancholia and the contrasting vociferousness of his wife all contributed to
the fractured relationship he was to have to his eldest boy, which in its unfortunate state was to
endure the war and to last into the post-1918 period. Despite the caricature pretensions and false
expressions of a repressed personality, Fritz Hess was genuinely concerned about the possibility of
losing his son in battle. Curiously, although he and his wife had preached the nominal values of
‘self-sacrifice’ and ‘duty’ neither wanted to lose Rudolf. Yet they insisted on ‘protecting’ their
emotions behind a screen of stereotypical responses. Hess’ father expresses his clumsy concern
only to realize the full implications of his son’s decision to join the infantry, for it was the infantry
that usually carried the weight of battle and suffered the most causualties. Hess in contrast to his
father has no thoughts of death. He embraces the war immaturely. He didn't think about the worry
his new enlistment was causing to both his parents. Nevertheless, Fritz Hess soon got down to
practicalities and decided on his own initiative to send his son a personal pistol, which he envisaged
being used at close quarters and in defense against the enemy. With no expense spared he also
bought and hastily dispatched to his son’s regiment a pair of brand new binoculars. These items
would bring Hess more trouble than their worth, for they lent him the appearance of an officer,
which he was clearly not. This caused enmity among his fellow ranks and officers, who regarded
him as spoilt. Despite the expression of nationalist solidarity with the onset of war, the German
Army like other armies still retained its social-class differences and elitist privileges.[81]

Hess did, as a result of the undivided attention of his parents, become spoilt. A letter to his father,
written on 28th September, 1914, reveals little thanks and more demands.[82] He appeared
ungrateful, as he suddenly realized the extent of his father’s expenses and for his own taste in
quality things. His carousel behavior from cavalry to artillery and then to the infantry cost his
father three expensive tailor made uniforms as well as the pistol and the binoculars. Hence, Hess
was given the appearance of a dandy in uniform. This might have been advantageous to him had he
been an officer. The prospect of rapid promotion would have been more assured had he remained
in the cavalry because a regiment of noble status looked after its own. In contrast Hess found
himself in an average, nondescript infantry regiment with mainly raw rural recruits. He stuck out
like a sore thumb not because of his fancy tailored uniform and made-to-requirement boots, but
because of his arrogant demeanor. To his father he quickly rattled off his thanks only to dampen
this gratitude with a list of other requirements, including stockings and underwear. He tells his
father, “Alles teure Sachen. Auch einen eigenen Helm werd' ich mir leisten, der viel leichter und
bequemer als die vom Militär ist. Etwas Geld brauch' ich auch so, denn von Zeit zu Zeit eß' ich
doch mal in der Stadt.”[83] The last remark lends the impression that once again he is desirous of a
Bohemian lifestyle, frequenting cafes and eating out – all at his father’s expense.

* * *

43
Fritz Hess wasn't in these early days of the war suffering economically [his businesses in Egypt
hadn’t yet been confiscated by the British]. He thought the war wouldn't last long, although he had
his doubts.[84] His mood perceptibly changed though as the autumn lengthened and no decisive
victory came, as had been forecast by Germany's leaders. His melancholia, inherited from his
mother [she had lost her first love during the Austrian-Prussian war of 1866], dampened his
enthusiasm for the conflict, without realizing that he was undermining his own patriarchal authority
and giving his wife free license to represent the family cause, not as she had done before but in a
more intensified way. Klara Hess fell momentarily under the persuasive patriotism of the papers
she had been reading. She was an intelligent woman, who was to quickly learn about war
propaganda and its effects, but she, too, was initially taken in by the persuasiveness and
nationalistic appeal of the ‘lead editorials’ of the time.

In contrast Klara’s husband failed to share in her ‘War Romanticism’ as he withdrew under the
cloak of his private business concerns, which began to occupy him more. Fritz Hess realized that
the war was fast developing in global proportions, especially after he learned from an acquaintance
in Heidelberg that Egypt had declared war upon Germany. He was astonished by the news. It
made him see the war as folly as a ‘lesser nation’ endeavored to confront a ‘greater one’ and he
criticized the Egyptian ministers for allowing their nation to be dictated to by the British.[85]
Before the war Egypt enjoyed suzerainty within the realm of the British Empire. In August 1914
this status altered as the country was proclaimed as a protectorate and then formally annexed.[86]
This left Fritz Hess further astonished. There was no indication that the Turkish Empire would be
drawn into the war either. Yet as relations in the Near East became strained, especially after two
German battle cruisers, SMS Breslau and SMS Goeben sought sanctuary in the Straits of the
Dardanelles, the Ottomans became drawn into the conflict and gave their formal declaration of war
to the British Embassy, with the hope of reacquiring Egypt and their lost Macedonian possessions
in the Balkans. As the war began to engulf the near East, with a Turkish Reconnaissance Force
being repelled from the Suez Canal, the British decided upon the formal confiscation of all property
and business belonging to ‘Enemy Aliens;’ a categorization that affected not only Fritz Hess and
other Auslandsdeutsche, but also Austrians and Turks, and later Bulgarians [after Bulgaria was to
join the Central Powers in 1915], who had previously settled in Egypt. As a result of the
confiscations of his businesses and of his financial assets, Fritz Hess’ worries substantially
multiplied. Seeing the psychological deterioration of her husband as a new difficult factor, Klara
Hess wrote to Rudolf: “Die Zeitungsnachrichten von Ägypten sind recht unerfreundlich. Der arme
Papa wird schwere Sorgen haben.”[87]

Hess' mother expressed her patriotism more intensely while her husband withdrew introspectively.
Klara read in the newspapers of the first destructive effects of German artillery against Belgian
forts. The Entente manipulated the images of destruction [making the most of photo-journalism’s
developing photography], especially when Belgian homes and civilians were the subject of German
bombardment. Klara, realizing that Germany was becoming embroiled in a war of sophisticated
propaganda, became convinced that whoever would win the ‘War of Words’ would win the conflict,
for she saw that a nation more tightly bound together in its common purpose to defeat the enemy
could despite obstacles overwhelm any materialist disadvantage through greater recourse to the
patriotic spirit; this was a view she kept even after America’s declaration of war upon Germany in
April, 1917. She didn't realize how her views became a tool of the propaganda she thought she was
able to see through. For the first years of the conflict she argued that Germany was waging war to
defend culture against the materialist-capitalist machinations of Britain and her Entente
partners.[88] Her seriousness, however, didn't always overwhelm her. She could still from time to
time express her sense of humor, writing, for instance: “Wenn nur die Russen sich abermals in
Sümpfen verlieren würden und die englische Flotte ein Riesenstrudel liebenswürdig verquirlen

44
wollte, fromme Wünsche.”[89] The French she regarded as worthy opponents and as a victim of
British and Russian manipulation. She continued to read in French throughout the war and never
criticized the French people; only their leaders.[90] The British she hated and the loss of the family
businesses in Egypt intensified that hatred. Her fiery comments asked for divine retribution, as she
prayed: “Gott gebe, dass die Revolution in Indien für die Engländer recht gefährlich wird, damit sie
Frankreich und Rußland nicht mehr unterstützen können (...).”[91]

When her son momentarily joined the artillery Klara Hess became very excited about the prospect
of modern war.[92] She began to think of the artillery as the key to winning the conflict because of
its enormous destructive power. She read her son's letters about the different caliber of artillery
weapon. So enthusiastic did she become that she wrote about the possibility of her younger son,
Alfred, joining the artillery, too.[93] She was struck by the romantic notion of seeing both her sons
serving together. This fancy left her as soon as Hess joined the infantry, prompting the romantic
thoughts of war within her to concentrate instead on the meaning of death. She thus began to
contemplate the possibility of losing her eldest and dearest, which was a thought that unnerved her
and yet at the same time stimulated her nationalist pride to a new elevated level of ferocity. The
fault lay with Rudolf, whose impetuous decision to join the infantry had spurred on the illusions of
‘Death and War’ embodied in his mother’s ‘Romanticism’. It was for her own peace of mind, as
well as her husband’s when she proclaimed to her eldest and dearest: “Wir geben Dich dem
Vaterland, kommst Du uns lebend zuruck, so sehen wir dieses Gluck als ein Geschenk Gottes an.
Gott mit Dir mein Sohn, Ich freue mich Deiner Energie.”

It is curious taking a look at Hess' enlistment record. Within a few weeks he joins the cavalry,
artillery and infantry. This reflects the state of his mind: confused, eager and frustrated.
Conditioned by a Wilhelmine education system that promoted romantic heroism, Hess finds the
urbanity of civilian life and that of bureaucratic routine unfulfilling. His experience with the
artillery reaffirms his disillusionment with Munich and the barrack room. He becomes determined
to get away. The infantry enables him to achieve this. He is trained within a short time and by the
beginning of October, 1914, finally reaches the Western Front, between the villages of Maubeuge
and Péronne on a quiet sector near the river Somme.

1. 4 Reading Letters

Hess’ first reflections at the front were optimistic, but he wrote as the lonely observer, commenting,
“Das richtige Zigeunerleben heut' hier, morgen dort. Aber zu essen haben wir wenigstens und gar
nicht schlecht.” He was writing as if he were reflecting upon an outing to 'Alstertal' from his
Hamburg days. His style hugs closely that of the diarist, giving his early letters from the trenches
an intimate quality, which his parents appreciated. His solitary roaming becomes evident as he tells
of his free time absorbed in books, adding, “Schöne Bücher in Goldschnitt liegen herum, meist
religiöse, aber auch andere, in denen ich lese. [94]

Hess felt isolated from his comrades, but he did try to involve himself in his regimental duty. This
often consisted of bucketing rain out of the trenches and manning the sentry posts during cold
nights. Such activity amounted to his sole engagement with the war, for on this sector of the front
virtually nothing happened. His diary style in his letters grew more sullen. Writing of one boring
day about his Company's position near Hardicourt on 23rd November, 1914, he wryly comments,
“Ein Offizier geht vorbei: 'Vom Gegner nicht Neues’. Immer dieselbe Meldung. Dazwischen
schießt der Franzos' eine Leuchtkugel ab, die eine leere tote Fläche beleuchnet.” The uninhabited
No-Man's Land conveys to his mind a darkened, eerie effect. The landscape can only become
awakened by the crack of a rifle shot, but the important thing Hess recognizes is keeping one's

45
hands warm. Without much chagrin his letter returns to the same old theme, “Es ist aber immer
dasselbe: 'Vom Gegner nicht Neues’.”[95]

In a letter written from early 1916 Hess presents more observations. His vantage point is an
observation post on a hill overlooking the enemy trenches. After the Moltke offensive had failed in
September, 1914, the German Army had retreated to an advantageous defensive position on higher
land, digging a sophisticated system of trenches that the Entente found hard to break. The new
commander of the army, the War Minister Erich von Falkenhayn, recognized that a war of mobility
was only possible in the East.[96] In 1915 the Germans recaptured all of Poland and parts of
Galicia that had previously fallen to the Russians. This war of movement in the East left Hess
feeling envious. His duties continued to be routine and observational. His description of No-Man's
Land reveals how remote he feels from the war. The enemy lies far beyond his reach. From his
hilltop crest, looking through his father's binoculars, he observes a column of horse drawn artillery
trying to cut clear from a heavy artillery barrage.

It is worth quoting a passage from these observations as Hess together with a comrade watch the
scene unfolding with silent breath. He paints a picture with words unlike any other in his letters
home. The letter, dated 19th January, 1916, possesses literary qualities as Hess indulges in
descriptions that guide the reader with his watchful eyes. This represents a progressive
development in his diary writing style and gives the letter a unique quality, as the following
indicates:

“(...) Wir sitzen auf einer Höhe und haben von hier aus einen wundervollen Blick ins eroberte Land. Ganz,
ganz flach ist es, wie ein Meer scheint es fast im abendlichen Dunst. Erst ganz am Horizont ist wieder eine
Hügelkette, ich glaub', sie ist schon in Belgien. Davor dehnt sich Ortschaft an Ortschaft aus, sie gehen bald
ineinander über. Es sieht wie eine Riesenstadt aus. Überall sind die Fordertürme der Bergwerke, daneben
das aus der Erde geholte Fordergut in Form von schwarzen riesigen Pyramiden. Zum Teil haben wir die
Bergwerke in Betrieb genommen, ganz hinten, wo des Gegners Geschütze nicht mehr hinreichen. Ich stand
lange mit Freund Hahn und betrachtete mir das Bild. Die ungeheure Fläche, vor der untergehenden Sonne
beschienen, hinten die violetten Höhen. Punktgroß, wie wimmelnde Insekten sieht man allenthaben
Menschen, Gruppen von Armierungssoldaten, die schanzen. Durch schwarze, drei einzelne Strichelchen
sieht man die drei Pferdepaare von fahrenden Geschützen oder Wagen angedeutet. Da zischt es über uns
weg und gleich darauf blitzt es in der Nähe der Gespanne auf, weiße Wolkchen hinterlassend. Es sind
feindliche Schrapnells. Die Pferde setzen sich schleunigst in Galopp und fahren in Deckung. Dann platzen
unten im Wald mal ein paar Granaten, Erde, Äste oder gleich Bäume hochwerfend. Armes Birkengeholz,
kreuz und quer liegen die Stämme durcheinander, wie hingestreute Streichhölzer, - Boh, boh, boh', metallene
Abschüsse reißen uns gleich wieder aus den Betrachtungen. Unsere Batterien schicken dem Gegner einen
Abendgruß. Überall in den Feldern blitzen unvermutet die versteckten Geschütze nebeneinander auf. Dann
kracht es weiter hinten wieder hinein in das viel beschossene Lens. Oben im Blau ziehen die Flieger ruhig
ihre Kreise wie Raubvögel. Wenn sie sich zu nahe kommen, knattert es leicht oben. Sie beschießen sich mit
Maschinengewehren. (...)” [97]

Hess' panoramic description ends with the appearance of aircraft, which are more sophisticated than
ever before, circling the skies. In acknowledging their initial silent spiraling he sees them as birds
of prey – new conquerors from above whom he wishes to emulate. This passage ranks as Hess' best
description of war conditions thanks to his developing literary style. His gifts go unacknowledged
because his best writing was inconsistent and ruined by kitsch. Had he received encouragement or
had he had a literary acquaintance he might have emerged from the war as a good narrator.[98] His
use of simile, describing men as stick insects, and his use of metaphor to describe the slag heaps as
pyramids reveal a good writing technique.

46
Hess becomes an avid reader, too, especially when it came to reading his mother's letters, which
represent his main point of contact with the war through the media's eyes. His mother's words fill
his imagination with battle scenes, troop movements, artillery duels, the sinking of great ships,
drowning men, submarines, prisoners and captured weapons.[99] She bombards him with statistics
and exciting accounts that do not reflect reality. Thankful for his mother's exaggerated descriptions
of sweeping victories in the East and of heroic submarine and Zeppelin warfare, Hess' patriotism
becomes fired up. Yet as his mother's passionate temperament cools in 1916 she is able to give him
a better account of Germany's political scene. She charts, for instance, the unstable relationship
between the Reich Chancellor and the generals. Her admiration for Bethman-Hollweg soars.
Taking his side she writes, “Bethmann Hollwegs Erklärungen an Amerika, den Lusitania-Fall
behandelnd, erregen allgemeine Zustimmung.”[100] She encloses an extract of the Chancellor's
speech in the Reichstag defending the nation's national honor. She recognized Bethmann Hollweg's
patriotic endeavor as more worthy than the Kaiser's, who had become a pawn in the hands of his
favorite generals, Hindenburg and Ludendorff.[101]

Klara Hess represents Germany's war as a struggle against Britain, seeing Russia and France as
periphery allies in British strategy. Her hatred is directed against the British Foreign Minister, Sir
Edward Grey [1862-1933], whom she condemns as the perpetrator (“der Anstifter”) of the world
conflagration. She was pleased when she read in die Hofer Zeitung, “In England fordert man den
Rücktritt des Ministers Grey.”[102] She had harsh words for the French premier, too, Poincaré,
calling him accusingly, “du Brutus, fällt schon der zweite der Anstifter des Weltenbrandes, die
Grechtigkeit schreitet schnell, Poincaré wird es wohl Angst haben.”[103] In her condemnation of
“stolzes England” she forewarns, “Der liebe Gott läßt der Ziege den Schwanz nicht zu lang
wachsen.”[104]

The war letters between Hess and his mother are revealing for two principal reasons: they show
how she contributed to his political development and how he responded to her insight. In the early
stages of the war Hess had no clue about political ideas. His mother thus educates him. To be fair
the process of political awakening was unfolding in her, too. She began the war as a chauvinistic
nationalist. She spent her time reading press reports, articles and speeches in the family study in
Reicholdsgrün. She became estranged from her husband, who spent more time away on fruitless
business trips. He then began to live a reclusive life, preferring quiet walks alone, hurrying away on
one occasion from his wife, his daughter Gretel and one of her school friends.[105] In this
atmosphere of strained relations, the family had to face new challenges as fuel became scare and
food became rationed with the staple diet more dependent on Ersatz products. Klara Hess began to
question the course and conduct of the war. She read more avidly than before and tried to
understand the war in its social-class dimensions. Writing to her Rudolf in Hardicourt she tells him,
“Ich lese die Zeitungen genau durch und lass mich dann nicht durch Pessi- oder Optimist
beeinflussen, und großes Gottesvertauen nimmt uns die Sorge um Dich.”[106]

The event that caused her to think more challengingly was ‘The Lusitania Affair’. In May 1915 the
Cunard liner Lusitania was returning from New York to British waters. She was sighted by a
German submarine just off Queenstown in southern Ireland and torpedoed. No warning was given.
The liner sank quickly with great loss of life with many Americans on board. The tragedy outraged
American opinion and placed Woodrow Wilson's presidential re-election campaign in jeopardy
because his electoral message had promised peace. In Germany the incident caused an inquest and
the Reich Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg, was asked to give an account of the incident in the
Reichstag. Speaking eloquently, the Chancellor defended his position thus:

47
“Ich bin bereit gewesen und bleibe es, Amerika alles zuzzugestehen, was Deutschland billigerweise in der
Behauptung der Grundsätze der Gerechtigkeit und seiner Ehre zugestehen kann. Allein, ich vermag einer
Demütigung Deutschlands nicht zuzustimmen. Ich kann mir die Waffe der Unterseeboote nicht aus der
Hand reißen lassen.”

Klara Hess cut the article out and sent it to her son.[107] Here was the first evidence of her giving
him an article with an incisive political commentary of her own. She was of the opinion that the
Chancellor had had no other alternative than to defend Germany's position and was curious to hear
the American reaction to the Chancellor's Reichstag speech. Her views went on to attack the
connivance of the Entente, whom she accused of drawing into the conflict with false promises, as
was the case with London's and Paris' bribes and overtures to Romania and Greece. She hoped
these countries would reject the Entente's meddling, writing, “Die Rumänen scheinen die Erfolge
der Zentralmächte endlich auf den richtigen Weg zu führen, und Griechenland führt die
Unverschämtheit der Entente auch zu uns.”[108] As long as German arms continued to be
dominant on the Eastern Front Entente promises to the Balkan kingdoms would remain
unattractive.[109]

Germany went through the sporadic and half-hearted motions of pursuing unrestricted submarine
warfare around the British Isles in 1915/16. The intention was to cut Britain's sea lanes to her
empire in a calculated short-term strategy that aimed not to offend American opinion. Bethmann-
Hollweg justified short-term unrestricted submarine warfare by arguing that the British maritime
blockade of Germany and the supplying of war material to Britain by neural America had been
dishonorable. However, he was unwilling to accept the German High Command's demand for long-
term unrestricted submarine warfare around the British Isles because he feared this would provoke
an American declaration of war.[110] The Chancellor rejected the American President's claim that
Germany had threatened America and had asked him to set the record straight. Klara Hess
commented, “Nun bin ich sehr neugierig auf Amerikas Antwort.”[111] America opted for peace in
1916 as a result of Wilson's presidential victory, but it was a duplicitous peace. Niall Ferguson
shows how the American industrialist J. P. Morgan was still willing, for instance, to supply Britain
with contraband.[112]

Klara Hess was suspicious of American motives and profit making and found through the
Chancellor's eloquence a satisfactory explanation for Germany's moral stance. Her attention turned
to the state of internal German politics after the Chancellor had explained himself to the Reichstag.
She began to understand the nationalist sentiment of the SPD and applauded the Reichstag's
collective patriotic unity over ‘The Lusitania Affair’.[113] This proves how far she had developed
as a constitutional observer of the Wilhelmine system, acknowledging that each facet of it – not just
the Kaiser and his generals – had a part to play. She also became aware of the masses as a political
force to be mobilized, recognizing from 1916/17 onwards how they and the working-class could
serve the nationalist cause more effectively.[114] What helps to bring her out of her previous
narrow mindedness are her reactions to the village womens' circle in Reicholdsgrün. She became
appalled by the attitude she encountered there, accusing the women of being frozen in a reactionary
mindset and by a condition of pessimism. Despite the “vieler Schwarzseher” (pessimists) among
them she strove to maintain an uplifted, nationalistic spirit.[115] She kept her optimism intact when
reading the papers, arguing, “Wenn man mit der schwarzen Brille des Pessimismus liest, so wird
jede günstige Nachricht zum Unheil verdreht.”[116]

From around 1916/17 onwards Klara’s idealism reflects a sincere cry for individual self-sacrifice in
the name of the national community.[117] This represents a revolutionary step for her. Having
previously expressed the theme of self-sacrifice in terms of her personal life and for the sake of her

48
children, she now began to alter her development after attending a special guest lecture. She tells
Rudolf:

“Ich {hörte} einen sehr schönen Vortrag über die Pflege der Persönlichkeit und 'der Seele', ging gegen den
Materialismus, der in so höhem Grade vor dem Kriege alles Ideelle verdrängt hatte. Es war eine sehr
durchdachte Rede u. ging hauptsächlich auf die Fabrikanten, die sich keine Zeit mehr gegönnt, die Seele zu
pflegen.” [118]

The lecture appealed to her inner spirituality that had previously found expression in exultant
religiosity. With her expression of new ideas reflecting social-class realities, she grew more
convinced that victory lay through the upkeep of spiritual and psychological well-being. The words
she had heard had caused her to alter her outlook, helped her to recognize the needs of the workers
and forced her to admit to the failings of capitalist management in war production. She also felt
national optimism had to be stage crafted, for in her view pessimism so easily depressed minds and
souls. She began, too, to look forward in a more positive refrain towards a healthier post-war
society, adding: “Nach dem Kriege soll danach gestrebt werden, Seele u. Gemüt zu ihrem Recht
kommen zu lassen. Ich glaube, wir wären alle damit einverstanden, denn die meisten hatten wohl
eine versteckte Sehnsucht danach. (...)”[119]

Klara’s writing echoes a forceful religious resonance. As a God-fearing woman she draws upon the
strength of her Catholic upbringing. Her religious hold over her son had been at its height during
the formal years of his school education. When Hess was fourteen she had sent him to Neuchâtel
for his confirmation at a Catholic seminary. She wrote to him soon after, promising God would be
with him as long as he kept his conscience clear. She prayed for divine protection while he was
serving at the front, especially when she learned of his promotion as an officer in mid- April, 1917.
She realized he would be undertaking more risks. Her worries induced her to write: “Gott schütze
Dich fernerhin, segne all' Deine Unternehmungen, führe Dich bald zu uns zurück, siegreich, gesund
an Leib und Seele.”[120] She reassures him further, “Gott wird der furchtbar schweren Zeit auch
wieder glückliche Jahren folgen lassen, die wollen wir dann in großer Dankbarkeit genießen und
sorgen, dass sie nicht durch die kleinlichen Miserien getrübt werden.”[121]

Klara's religiosity suffered, though, under the weight of her nationalism. Often she invokes God's
name to smite her British enemy. In one instance she threatens the very worst for Germany's
enemies, writing, “Am Galgen baumeln, wäre für sie noch ein zu nobler Tod.”[122] Her expression
becomes fraught, emotional, stumbles and obstructs her clarity: “Gott beschütze unser teures
Vaterland u. schenke recht bald den endgültigen Sieg,” she writes as the war intensifies in early
1916 at Verdun. She identifies with the soldiers, living out their fears as well as their hopes. The
troops become her heroes as if out of a Germanic saga, as she writes: “Unsere Gedanken sind jetzt
ganz besonders viel bei Euch tapferen Feldgrauen mit innigen Wünschen für Heil und Sieg.” Her
wrath turns against the perpetrators of the needless blood-sacrificing, seeing the diplomats and
leaders of the Entente as responsible for the deluge. In her condemnation of foreign politicians
she tells her son, “Die Lügenreden der feindlichen Minister sind einfach gemein. So gemein, dass
man sich nicht einmal darüber ärgern kann. Im Gegenteil, man fühlt nur ihre Schwäche daraus
sollte sich freuen.”[123]

* * *

Under the pressure of events, Klara Hess discovers a political agility. The conditions of the times
sober her judgment and arouse her compassion. She writes to her son of the prevailing difficulties
at home and of hunger. “Wir haben heute das erstenmal Brot mit Brotmarkten erstanden,” she

49
writes in April, 1916, adding: “(...) Wir bekommen täglich 267 Gramm Brot.”[124] A year later
she is writing: “Da es weniger Brot gibt, bekommt man mehr Fleisch u. einen Teil auf
Zusatzmarken sehr billig.”[125] She balances her pros and cons with an optimistic outlook. She
tells Rudolf proudly how she received one pound of calf’s liver for 10 Marks, regarding this as a
personal victory for good housekeeping. Yet her thoughts are not only about her own worries and
that of Gretel's [aged 9], but also about the people. In early 1917 working-class strikes over
conditions of pay occurred, as munitions factories temporarily slowed production. It sparked off a
government crisis. The Chancellor had already because of his failed peace initiative in December,
1916, fallen foul of Hindenburg and Ludendorff. The strikes added to the criticism against him. In
March, 1917 he resigned, seeing a month later the full vindication of his fears as America declared
war. Klara Hess felt sympathy for the beleaguered Bethmann-Hollweg, but the focus of her
attention had shifted from political personalities to the masses. She praises the working-class –
albeit in condescending terms – for not being to blame for the strikes and pointed instead an
accusing figure against profit-seeking industrialists. When munitions workers returned to their jobs
as a result of their food rations being slightly improved, she rejoices on their behalf: “Freue mich
für die Arbeiter, die kräftige Nahrung wird ihnen wohltun u. würden sie auch wieder mit mehr Lust
arbeiten.”[126]

The unexpected transformation in Klara Hess occurs in 1916/17 as she identifies State Socialism as
the means to uplifting the working-class, whose burden she feels she carries. She becomes not a
socialist in defense of narrow class interests, but an activist working for the patriotic good of the
nation. In Reicholdsgrün she begins to supervise food rationing and is critical of those who hoard.
She makes her own stance very clear: “Ich bin eine zu gute Patriotin, um mich auf Kosten anderer
dick zu essen.”[127] She sacrifices her personal interests in the arts and music. In the early days of
the war she had played the piano and had taught her daughter patriotic songs.[128] By the time the
war had reached its third year these simple pleasures didn't matter to her anymore, as she grew more
austere. The change in her attitude was caused by hardened realities as the home population
underwent the rigors caused by the British maritime blockade. At the beginning of 1917, she
writes, “Wir haben arge Kälte, u. da das rollende Material für Kriegszwecke in Anspruch
genommen, fehlt es sehr an Kohlen. Wir lernen nun auch 'frieren' kennen, ist's nicht grade das
wohligste Gefühl.”[129]

At the front Hess, faced with incomprehension as to why misfortune happened, decided to adopt the
mantle of a fatalist. His fatalism, though, was a crude trick of literary invention as his sector of the
front continued to remain inactive without much danger. He chose fatalism as an explanation of the
war after his initial war romanticism had failed to ignite his imagination. The second year of the
war seemed to him to stumble into an unbearable confusion as he wrote, “Wir werden hier alle zu
Fatalisten. 'Wenn Gott will, derhaut's Deinen 'Kohlrabi', wenn nicht, eben nicht.”[130] Hess had
an agenda. He wanted to show his parents whom he thought was deserving or undeserving of
death. He praised bravery to the point of recklessness. He tells of a man decorated with the Iron
Cross for walking in front of his own trenches without the least fear. On another occasion he
praises a soldier who had continued his sentry duty despite being shot at six times. He had in
contrast no pity for cowards and writes almost joyously about the deaths of two stretcher bearers he
accuses of malingering.[131] He hated shirkers to such an intensity that in one letter home his
wrath explodes: “Oh, sie wissen ja gar nicht, wie sie sich an uns versündigen, diese Schwätzer am
Biertisch, die Klatschbasen im Kaffeekränzchen!” Sie würden sonst schweigen!”[132] In his
tainted version of the war there are those for whom he demands the utmost punishment, even death.
This new aggressive character trait was to prepare Hess for the barbarism of war.

50
1.5 The Barbarism of War

The darker side of Hess' war personality was temporarily thwarted by his clinging to war
romanticism. In mid 1915 he was awarded the Iron Cross, although he didn't know why. He
blamed his superiors for the award because they wanted to bring upon the Company the merit of the
regimental commander's attention, which wasn't possible as long as the soldiers were bogged down
in non-activity and daily routine. The Company officers aimed to provoke the French through
daring night raids. There was a lack of volunteers for such pointless bravado. Hess though
volunteered. He held the rank of Lance Corporal and led a group of men into No-Man's Land up to
the enemy wire. After returning from one such outing, which he regarded as routine, he was
awarded his decoration. Confused he turned sarcastically against his superiors, telling his parents
how he thought he could do their job better. He was sent on an officer's training course, but grew
disenchanted as soon as he had arrived. He returned to the front bearing an even greater grudge
against the officer corps. He tells his parents in a letter dated 22nd September, 1915, “Viel Spaß hat
mir Eure Frage gemacht, ob der 'Leutnantslehrgang' angenehm ist. Nein, wir können ihm mit dem
besten Willen keinen Geschmack abgewinnen. Mancher hätte schon auf die ganze Sache verzichtet
(...).”[133] His fellows induced him to make an earlier return to the front, as he explained that at
the officer training camp in Munsterlager it was “viel anstrengender, als die letzte Zeit im
Schützengraben.”[134]

On returning to the front, Hess enjoyed his first real chance of glory, participating in a defensive
action against a French incursion of the line on 11th October, 1915. He thought his participation
would have earned an Iron Cross more justifiably than for the reasons given him earlier.
Nevertheless, the defensive action brought his Company and Battalion a heroic status.[135] After
the trench was saved Hess' Battalion was acknowledged by the regimental commander and the army
group commander as “die Heldenbattalion” (“the heroes' Battalion”).[136] Hess' mother greeted the
news, writing: “Deine Beschreibung von dem September-Angriff erzeugte bei uns arges Mitleid
und großen Stolz für Deine Kameraden. (...) Gott gebe, dass Ihr vor ähnlichem behütet bleibt.”
[137] Ludwig III and his son, Crown Prince Rupprecht, inspected the troops with the commander
of I Army Corps, Oskar Ritter von Xylander. Hess comments wittily, “Als Generalmajor D. in
seiner kurzen Ansprache sagte, dass wir unseren König unter dem Donner der Geschütze begrüßen,
krachten auch tatsächlich gerade vornen die Schüsse, Dum -wum!” The ceremonial
acknowledgment of a “glorious” moment gave Hess his first real sense of being actively engaged in
the war.[138]

In March 1916 Hess' regiment was moved from the Péronne-Maurrebas sector to Verdun.[139] It
was to take part in the great offensive that was supposed to knock the French Army out of the war.
The Krupp steel industry had amassed the greatest caliber artillery weapons the Germans had yet
possessed. The aim was to saturate the French forts around Beaumont and Verdun just as the
Belgian forts had been previously brought to ruin. The forts lay in a bottleneck so that they fell
under intensive artillery bombardment from three sides. Alistair Horne recounts the battle mainly
from the point of view of the leading personalities and gives a strong impression of the battle from
the French perspective.[140] The Germans have often been seen – on account of von Falkenhayn's
infamous quotation of wanting to “bleed” the French dry[141] – as the villains of the battle. In
actual fact they became victims of their own strategy. After capturing the fort of Doumant through
so much self-sacrifice it became celebrated by the German press as a prestige symbol, which the
German High Command refused to surrender to ferocious French counter-attacks.. The Germans
consequently poured more and more men into a strategic death trap.[142]

51
It was during one of these artillery barrages that the twenty-one year old Hess was about to go over
the parapet when an artillery shell exploded a few meters away. Shrapnel flew in different
directions – fragments tearing into Hess' right hand (his firing hand) and upper arm.[143]
Immobilized with pain he and an officer, who was suffering under shell shock, were escorted to a
casualty clearing station. Hess recounts the story to his mother in the most unheroic terms.[144]
He is angered by what has happened. Describing the moment of impact he tells his parents, “Kaum
war ich bei dem Schützen, da kam 'fffum' schon wieder eine 21-cm-Granate von uns, schlug neben
mir im Graben ein, und ich sah nur noch spritzende Erde und Rauch. Gleichzeitig spürte ich zwei
scharfe Schläge an der Hand und am Oberarm.”[145] He couldn't believe his ill luck and unable to
fire his trigger hand he was taken to the rear. He sees his wounding as the one that took away his
chance of military glory.[146] He laments having to make his way back with a young shell-
shocked officer, whom he criticizes unashamedly as a malingerer.[147] He permits a fellow soldier
from the ranks, someone from the working-class, to bandage his hand and strikes up a conversation
with him. This is an example of Hess' War Socialism because he wants to be seen identifying with
the masses.

After recovering from his wounds, Hess rejoined his regiment in autumn 1916 to find that it had
been moved again; this time away from Verdun and sent to Germany's south eastern front against
Czarist Russia over the battleground of Romania. Romania had been persuaded to enter into the
war on the side of the Entente, with the promise of being ceded Transylvania and Bukovina from
the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. The country, run by a nationalist-liberal government, soon
realized the error of its misplaced alliance. Czarist Russia was of little help as its army was in a
state of turmoil, coming under the influence of Bolshevik propaganda. It was Falkenhayn,
dismissed as German commander for his strategic failure at Verdun, who was sent to lead the
combined Austrian-German army and crush Romania. This area of the front was a side show, but
the brief campaign acted as a useful propaganda victory for the Germans.

While on the Romanian front Hess writes of his first experience of the Bolsheviks and reports how
he wrote his first ever political pamphlet.[148] The Bolsheviks at this stage in the conflict were
divided amongst themselves. They represented the minority breakaway faction from the majority
Russian Social Democratic Party (the Mensheviks). The split had been orchestrated by Lenin in
1903, who later justified his reasons in his retrospective polemic How to beat the Social
Democrats.[149] He argued that the reformist tendency of the Social Democrats in European
countries betrayed the revolutionary worker.[150] He formed the Bolsheviks as a small intellectual
cadre, dedicated to the overthrow of autocracy and liberal democracy in Russia through direct
agitation.[151] In March 1917 the Czar was forced to abdicate after the liberal Cadet party
supported by the Social Democrats and the agrarian Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) decided to form
their own government. At this time the German High Command assisted Lenin's return to Russia
through the “sealed train,” which took him from his seat of exile in Zurich to St. Petersburg.

When Hess explains his political pamphlet against the Bolsheviks, they aren't the Bolsheviks of the
Leninist faction. Bolsheviks had participated in the Duma (the Russian state parliament) and saw
themselves as nationalist revolutionaries.[152] This meant that they represented not only equality
for the people, but were simultaneously dedicated to the overthrow of Russia's enemies through
revolutionary war. It is with this in mind that Hess stumbled across nationalist Bolshevik leaflets
strewn in evacuated Russian trenches. Out of curiosity he picked one up and read it.[153] The
Bolsheviks called for the pursuit of the revolutionary war against the German Kaiser, the
aristocracy and industrial elite and appealed to the proletariat German infantryman to lay down his
arms and join them in their struggle.[154] They claimed how through their agitation they had
helped to topple their Czar and that soon it would be the turn of the Kaiser to fall: “Wir haben die

52
bürgerliche Freiheit bekommen, von welcher sogar zu denken ihnen noch zu früh ist. Ihr werdet
letztere erst dann bekommen, wenn ihr den Kopf eurem Wilhelm herunterdreht.” This message was
Hess' first contact with revolutionary propaganda and it made an impression on him. It ended with
the greeting, “Große und freie Rußlands Soldaten.”[155] First as a joke and then quite seriously,
Hess decided to write back.

Hess writes his propaganda leaflet to the Bolsheviks in German, calling them “Edle
Lausikoffs!”[156] They had written their initial provocation in German and Russian. Hess begins
his answer by pointing out the Bolsheviks' mistaken cause and their ignorance of a German
“national community.” For a greater political clarity he suggests they ought to read
Simplicissimus.[157] It is curious how Hess uses the arguments of State Socialism to answer
Russian revolutionaries. He argues the German worker makes the same sacrifice as the German
employer and implies that a socio-economic equilibrium exists in Germany for total victory.
Interestingly, he tells his adversaries that they are the ones being duped by the machinations of
Great Britain and her Empire. It is Britain he tells them who is using their blood to fight a senseless
conflict. He argues they are needlessly fighting despite the Czar's downfall and adds, “Ihr müßt erst
noch viel mehr für den edlen Bundesbruder England bluten (...).”[158] He plays the Bolsheviks at
their own game: using examples and generalizations to enforce his polemical points and says of the
Kaiser: “Der hat Euch schon lange einen Frieden angeboten zu günstigen Bedingungen. Ihr aber
wolltet nicht”[159] Here we see Hess the skilled propagandist at work proving himself competent
with a twist of humor: “Eurem Dolmetscher sagt, er soll nach 'Debberitz' kommen, damit er richtig
deutsch lernt.” He infers Döberitz, a military training ground for Prussian regiments in Berlin, is
where the Bolshevik revolutionaries might learn something as he encourages them to awaken from
their fancy ideas.[160]

Hess' baptism into modern politics and propaganda brought him into conflict with his mother.
Their relationship alters as Klara Hess writes favorably about the cause of Russian Social
Democracy.[161] She responds positively to the press reports she has read about Georghi
Plekhanov – the founding father of the Russian Social Democratic Movement – and believes that
his followers in exile will help bring Russia out of the war.[162] She underestimates their
nationalist sentiment. The German High Command transported not only Lenin and his followers
back to his homeland, but also majority Russian Social Democrats. Klara Hess sees in both groups
guarantors of peace. She neither understands their motives nor their patriotism. She has never heard
of Lenin and hasn't heard of the proletarian revolutionary aspects of his Bolshevism. She groups all
the Russian exiles from Switzerland under the same banner of peace.[163] The Russian Social
Democrats, though, wanted a new parliamentary government that would continue the war against
Germany. Lenin wanted in contrast to end the war against Germany, but start a new war based on
social-class conflict against the ruling classes and bürgerlich ideology.[164] Hess understood
events unfolding in Russia much better than his mother, recognizing the patriotic aspirations of the
revolutionaries and of the Social Democrats. The political difference between mother and son over
Russia signified an emotional/psychological rupture.

Hess also felt his mother's letters had become too authoritarian.[165] He didn't know how to
oppose her. He recognized her attraction to State Socialism and acknowledged that a greater
sacrifice on the part of both worker and capitalist was necessary to build a unified national
community.[166] His nationalist interpretation of socialism was, however, bitterly opposed to the
internationalist socialism of the USPD and of the reform socialism of the MSPD.[167] His
socialism emerges out of an imagined soldiers' camaraderie he thought he had at the front. He
repudiated Marxism and despised parliamentary democracy.[168] Despite his strong political
views Hess becomes no political activist; nor does he join any political party. In his view they are

53
all rotten to the core. What he believes in is the integrity of the common soldier and worker.[169]
He responds to his political disenchantment by engaging more patriotically with the war. This led
on 24th July,1917, to his second wounding as he led his reconnaissance unit into a Russian
ambush. He brushed the whole affair off, stating coolly, “Nur hab' ich einen kleinen Granatsplitter
im Arm,” and boasted proudly, “sonst hatte ich unter den 30 Mann keinen Verletzten.”[170] A
month later he was wounded again, though this time along with his brother Alfred, who had
recently joined his battalion. With laconic humor he announces: “Liebe Eltern, Verwundung No. 3,
auch nicht weiter schlimm, aber die Heilung wird doch einige Zeit beanspruchen.”[171] Hess was
wounded in the thigh while Alfred had two light shrapnel wounds to the face. The brothers were
sent to different casualty clearing stations, so that Hess lost contact with Alfred. He recovered in a
private world of books and political pamphlets. Among his reading at this time were Wilhelm
Hauf, Friedrich Spielhagen, Ernst von Wildenbuch, Helmuth Graf Moltka, Ludwig Thoma and
Ernst Schmidt, his favorite children's author.[172]

Hess' third recovery from wounds permitted him to take another introspective look at himself. He
read widely, looking through the hospital library for books on history, philosophy and culture.[173]
As an act of temporary reconciliation with his mother he received from her a copy of l'question de
l'agypte, a volume written before the war which examines the reasons for the British
military/economic presence in Egypt.[174] This represents Klara Hess' attempt to draw her son's
attention to serious intellectual matters. His reading encouraged him to turn against the ruling class,
so that by the last year of the war he isn't so enthusiastic about imperial authority anymore and
openly criticizes church and Kaiser. His brand of national socialism (not yet the antisemitic
National Socialism of his NSDAP political career) assumes an atheist aspect as he rejects the basis
of religion. He sees in conflict a personal mythologized God of retribution. It is the “God of War”
that his allusions subscribe to as his world view slips into the character of a warring cosmic
universe. In this respect his views echo Ernst Jünger, who eulogizes war in quasi-spiritual terms
and sees it as a struggle beyond the limits of human consciousness.[175] In other words the cause
of the individual becomes vanquished. Enzo Traverso explores the Jünger phenomena of mixing
spirituality with war and argues how his writings contributed to the nationalism of the bürgerlich-
Right, helping to pave the way for the Nazis.[176]

In the last year of the war Hess is more than ever before immersed in an impersonalized war,
absorbed by machines and weapons.[177] On hearing on 23rd April, 1918, of the death of his
nephew, Rudolf Münch, he can respond only with a cliché: “Wie unberechenbar und hart doch das
Schicksal sein kann!” The theme of self-sacrifice reaches its limit within him. He suppresses his
personality becoming subsumed by the spirit of the war. He begins to write not of himself any
longer but of “wir” (we) setting himself aside for his comrades. The only joy he has is the aircraft
he controls above in the clouds. “Es war wundervoll, so ganz allein da oben,”[178] he tells his
mother. In this instance Hess is at one with his flying machine after having passed his first set of
flying exams on 29th June, 1918.[179] He is able to practice flying and reach out for a state of
perfection until he can virtually fly in his sleep (“im Schlaf fliegen”). The years of attrition and of
materialist conflict had sapped every individual's spirit. Klara Hess asks whether intensifying the
efforts of the spirit is the only way of triumphing against the materialist preponderance of
Germany's enemies.[180]

In April 1917 the USA declared war against the Central Powers and increased substantially the
unequal materialist odds against them. Hess' mother calls for greater sacrifice of the spirit until
exhausted she collapses as does the nation; her only consolation being a little time for inward
reflection:

54
“Gott sei Dank ist unser Glück nicht abhängig von außerem Glanz und Protzentum. Wenn es sein muss,
gewöhnen wir uns auch an das hiesige einfache Dasein. Der innere Mensch findet in dieser
Zurückgezogenheit sicher sein Recht besser als im Getriebe der Welt.” [181]

Her message is for her own conscience rather than her son's, for a feature of the war was its ability
to fracture people's relations to one another. Hess' mother slips deeper into a melancholy
introspection, within which she protects her own hopes. Asking herself what might next occur, she
writes, “Vielleicht siegt doch noch die Gerechtigkeit, und bekommen wir einen gerechten Frieden.”
This was her most cherished hope, which she expressed on 31st October, 1918, on her husband's
birthday, a day she couldn't celebrate. She laments: “Ich konnte ihn nur mit einem Friedenskuchen
erfreuen.”[182]

Hess continues to reflect upon his military duties. His spirit is totally dedicated to the war and his
machine, a Fokker D VII aircraft. He reveals in one of his last war letters – his letters had become
briefer due to the shortage of paper and an inability to express himself – how far removed he feels
from everything. His only worthwhile thought is to be at the front.[183] He sees the lines of
trenches below, the shadows of troop movements and nothing else but smoke and flashes:

“Es war das erstemal, dass ich die Schlachtfront von oben sah, bei klarem Wetter. 3000M waren wir hoch.
Wie eine Landkarte lag die Welt unter uns. Mitten durch die Gegend zog sich ein Band von brennenden
Ortschaften, weit ins Land reichten die bleigrauen langen Rauchfahnen. Immer neue Einschläge blitzten
dazwischen auf. Dort unten ist die Grenze zwischen Freund und Feind, die überschreitet nicht so leicht einer
lebend.” [184]

He is consumed by the hum of his machine. His face is hidden behind goggles, scarf and flying
cap. His appearance appears extinguished as much as his personality.[185] He may feel all spirit –
but it is the spirit of a new impersonalized, mechanistic age.
This impersonalized experience of war enhanced the spirit of self sacrifice, which came to
represent the new values Hess carried with him into the post-1918 period. He becomes as a result
even more quirky and incapable of settling down into a normal bürgerlich life. The war destroyed
all normal conventions for him. It has often been suggested by Hess' supporters that he was a
victim, a martyr and an 'apostle of peace'.[186] Although these untruths mythologize his character
and hide the fact of his racial crimes against the Jews, he was in fact after all a victim, but not as the
revisionists and his supporters claim.[187] Hess became first a victim of pre1914 Wilhelmine
bürgerlich society, which unsettled his personal equilibrium.[188] He was further upset by his
experience of war. It is these two experiences that radicalize his life, creating the conditions for his
impersonalized treatment of racial and political enemies and for his willingness to lose himself in a
cause: National Socialism.

55
 TWO

The Anti-Semite

“Komm' mit, Rudi, mach's nach!

An Egoismus gehen so viele zugrunde.”

– Gret Georg to Hess, November, 1918

“Außergewöhnliche Zeiten verlangen außergewöhnliche Taten.”

– Hess to Milly, 3rd July, 1921

2.1 How Hess became an Anti-Semite

When one considers Hess' commitment to the Nazi racial cause and to his resolving of the
Judenfrage, it has to be asked what led to this? It is not enough to argue that he became an anti-
Semite all because of Hitler.[1] This is the argument rendered by his son Wolf Rüdiger Hess, who
right up into the 1980s led the struggle to protect his father's name.[2] He was ably supported by
Hess' lawyer, Dr. Seidl,[3] whose ‘Revisionist’ agenda portrays Hess as the martyr and victim of his
times.[4] The historians Kurt Pätzold and Manfred Weißbecker have since, with the publication of
Hess – Der Mann an Hitlers Seite [Leipzig, 1999],[5] discredited the agenda of those who wish to
idolize Hess. Why this phenomenon of ‘idolization’ has lingered on, attracting uninformed and
misguided young admirers of the ‘Hess-Legend’, has something to do with the mystique and
romantic nature of Hess’ persona. Clearly it is inappropriate, and indeed unlawful, for Hess’ words
and for his iconic image to be still emblazoned upon tee-shirts. Yet the attractive quality of this
man continues not just because of the heroic single-handed action of flying against the odds to
England in May, 1941, but also because of particular gaps in his biography that followers of his
name are able to exploit to their advantage.

Pätzold and Weißbecker, for instance, exaggerate Hess’ apparent archetypal Wilhelmine reactionary
influences, in particular the fact that he was an officer in a royal Bavarian regiment during the First
World War. On the face of it, it may indeed appear as if Hess was a reactionary figure, but such an
assumption ignores how he struggled to become an officer and in many cases, as we have seen,
obstructed his own rise through the ranks either through ill-fated decisions or through a blatant
obstinacy that had no wish to kowtow to the whims of the German Army’s Officer Corps. It is,
therefore, incorrect to argue, as Pätzold and Weißbecker do, that Hess was a mouthpiece for the
reactionary views of the officer class. Indeed he was particularly vociferous in his condemnation of
social elitism and of the privileged status of officers, many of whom he regarded as unworthy.
Hess’ first inkling of a ‘national socialism’ is a soldierly perception of comradeship among the
common soldier willing to uphold the national cause come what may. In identifying Hess as one
who sympathizes with the common ranks marks him as a kind of subversive and radical. He

56
doesn’t engage in any political and revolutionary representation until his mixing with fellow
Freikorps fighters [right-wing mercenaries] on the streets of Munich in April/May, 1919. It shall be
argued here that the radicalization and militarization of German society through paramilitary
organizations of both Left and Right indelibly marked Hess as a revolutionary and political
propagandist. This post-war period shaped his personality in terms of his anti-Semitism. His
racial-ideological views he acquired through the pseudo-intellectuals he encountered at the Thule-
Gesellschaft in Munich, through which he also met Hitler for the first time.[6]

Hess' ‘national socialism’ emerges out of a disaffected climate directed against the privileges of the
Wilhelmine ruling elites, against their failure to propagate effectively the cause of the nation and,
most importantly, in his view, their failure and that of the monarchy’s to forge an effective national
community. Influenced by his mother’s reporting back about hoarders and unfair distributions of
food and fuel, he jumbles her prejudices with his own against shirkers and irresponsible officers in
the trenches. This mish-mash of prejudices and of personal dissatisfaction with the running of the
war shaped Hess’ trench-soldier socialism. Although this marked the beginning of his ‘national
socialism’ – not to be confused with the racial-ideological National Socialism of the NSDAP –
Hess’ young mind was clearly non-Marxist and vociferously nationalistic. The racial and anti-
Semitic layer to his thinking was provided in due course by his Freikorps experience and his
membership of the Thule-Gesellschaft. Helmut Theissen is correct to emphasize that the ‘national
socialism’ of the trench-soldier was fundamentally in its socialism non-Marxist and predominately
nationalistic.[7] Their main political identification was with the idea of a common nation
community. Here we see the prototype for the idea of the Volksgemeinschaft, the NSDAP racial-
ideological version of a national community working together under a common cause: the
Fatherland.

Whereas soldiers embraced a simplistic version of the idea for a national community without social
status and privilege predominating, certain pseudo-intellectuals of the far-Right would encompass
this craving for a more egalitarian and nationalist society by combining this simplistic urge on the
part of the ordinary disaffected soldier with ideas of race and of anti-Semitism.† Arguably, the
intellectuals of the Left, some of whom were soldiers themselves, played a fundamental role in
setting up the soldier and worker councils that spontaneously appeared at the front and throughout
Germany promising a new dawn with the establishing of a true worker and soldier republic – thus
giving credence to the idea of Soviet [council] representation among the masses. The intellectuals
of the Right had less success. The counter-Revolution and the aim to crush the worker and soldier
councils in autumn, 1918, sprang up among the German Army Officer Corps, whose special
propaganda units aimed to disassociate soldiers from any belief in Marxism, democracy, unions and
the Soviet worker and soldier councils. It was the propaganda unit under Captain Mayr in Lechfeld,
the army barracks just outside Munich, which hired Hitler as a skilful anti-Semitic and nationalist
agitator and propagandist.[8] In this context the Army was more successful that the pseudo-
intellectuals of the Right, who had organized themselves in ‘closed societies’ such as the Thule-
Gesellschaft.

† The term ‘national socialism’ was one coined not in Germany but in pre-1914 Italy by the disaffected intellectual
Enrico Corradini, whose influence was to mark the political careers of Benito Mussolini and of Gabrielle D’Annunzio,
the principal founders of Italian Fascism. In fact the idea of combing the simplicity of the trench soldier with the
intelligentsia of the Right based its strength of argument on the sophisticated intellect of not just Corradini but also
Marinetti. Both men argued that war was the antidote to the mundane and disaffection with bürgerlich society and its
parliamentary institutions. It is clear that Italian “Socialismo nazionale” had more sophisticated pre-war roots.[10]
The German model had its intellectual basis in volkish-nationalism, which was stronger in its racial and anti-Semitic
orientation. As German soldiers such as Hess embraced the idea of a national community being set up under the
auspices of ‘national socialism’, the connection between this urge and the racial-ideological connotations of the
intellectuals on the far-Right had still to be made.

57
The intellectual who was to have the most important influence upon the young Hess was the
renegade-intellectual, Dr. Gottfried Feder [1883-1941],[9] who embraced the idea of ‘national
socialism’ for the masses with the motivating factor of anti-Semitism. In short, this man, craving
influence and serious political acknowledgment, broached his ideas to the members of the Thule-
Gesellschaft by arguing that Germany’s demise and economic and inflationary collapse following
the terms of the Entente’s Armistice, was the fault of the Jews. He attacked bitterly the bürgerlich
Jewish intelligentsia and industrialist class, epitomised by the successful figure of Walther
Rathenau [1867-1922].[10] It is noticeable that his anti-Semitism refrained from attacking Jewish
religiosity and Jewish Orthodoxy and concentrated its polemical hatred against the acculturated
bürgerlich Jewish class, which he defined as the most surreptitious and evasive ‘racial enemy’
working within post-war Germany. He put forward his ideas in his theory called the ‘Das
Brechnung der Zinnsknechtschaft’, which also became the title of his book, published in Berlin in
1919.[11] He explains that Germany’s misfortune has two principal reasons for it: first the
acculturated Jews undermining the nation from with and second the internationalist element of
World Jewry, which he saw sabotaging Germany’s international status by working apparently in the
hands of the Entente. In both instances Feder was advocating his theory against Jewish monopoly
Capitalism. His brand of socialism was therefore anti-Semitic in that he campaigned for the
nationalisation of all Jewish property and business enterprises within Germany.[12] He felt that the
Jews had in the guise of the ‘Jewish-Capitalist’ such as Rathenau undermined the German state by
offering high-interest loans that the German state in the climate of political disaffection and
economic collapse following the Armistice could not hope to pay back. His polemical attack was
also directed against those agents of “Jewish Plutocracy,” who in his view had a major part to play
in formulating the huge insurmountable reparations bill that was presented by the Entente to the
German government in May, 1919.

The widespread appeal of ‘national socialist’ thinking in terms of founding an egalitarian national
community had reverberations among the home population in Germany, too, and not just among
returning trench soldiers such as Hess had once been. For instance, Hess’ cousins, Gret Georg and
Milly Kleinmann, represent the two of the emerging voices among women’s intellectual and
political emancipation in the autumn of 1918. In the spring of 1919 both young women became
more idealistic as they realized the immediate need to rebuild Germany after the catastrophe of four
and half years of war. To their mind German youth, in which they saw Hess as an archetypal
example, had to fulfill this mission of rebuilding the nation out of the critical state it was in. Their
idealism still thought in terms of the Armistice brokered by the American President, Woodrow
Wilson, whose Fourteen Points envisaged a peace with neither victors nor vanquished. The Entente
wasn’t to deliver its enormous reparations bill to the German government until May, 1919. Until
then both women envisaged the program of rebuilding to be a nationwide exercise in which all
social-classes would put aside their self-interest and work together for the common good. This
represented the basis of their ‘national socialism’, which naturally was far from being racial,
ideological or anti-Semitic. This just goes to show how the roots of ‘national socialist’ thinking
was in its essence reflective of a common will to rebuild together and defeat social elitism.
Recognizing the immediate importance of communal togetherness with each individual doing his or
her utmost for society and the family, Gret Geog rejects political radicalism and ideological phrase
mongering [to her mind extremely egotistical] and advises the returned and disconsolate figure of
Hess with appropriate words of warning. Explaining he should not become distracted by political
adventure or political promises and should instead engage in hard practical work, namely in seeking
a profession. She warns: “Rudi, die Aufgabe ist groß u. erstrebenswert.”

Gret Georg promises to fulfill her own sense of responsibility, informing Rudolf further: “Ich will
ehrlich mich mühen, sie zu erfüllen u. meinen kleinen Teil beitragen, das eine neue Zeit dennoch

58
wieder neuen Auftrieb bringe.” Her optimism for better times unveils her natural inclination to see
comfort and prosperity which in the depressed and inflationary ridden post-war Germany was
becoming increasingly difficult. Like many others she sees the rebuilding of the nation as essential,
writing of herself and Hess: “Wir sind doch die Jungen, wenn wir verzweifeln wollen, was sollen
dann die Alten tun?”[13] Her advice focuses on the need to help elderly relatives as well as those in
the community. Her egalitarian character reveals her socialist way of thinking, which was non-
Marxist and predominately patriotic. In this context her ideas were more sophisticated than Hess’.
He, however, reacted nonchalantly and uncommitted, with no intention of doing anything neither
practically nor professionally. He regarded himself as a cut above the ordinary person, seeing
himself as informed and as astute. His egotism busied itself with the reading of the newspapers,
[14] including the French press, seeing in the articles of the Parisian papers the basis of revanchist
and annexationist views of a French Diktat, although he regarded the British as the ones fanning the
flames of French intentions against Germany. Thus, caught up in the nationalist debates and
journalistic reporting of the times, Hess was slipping more towards finding a political solution to
Germany’s misfortune through political engagement – precisely a slip into the egotism his cousin
had warned him against. Although still without political affiliations until May, 1919, when he
undertook the electioneering campaign of the DNVP on the streets, distributing propaganda leaflets
with his brother, Alfred, he was gradually and inexorably becoming more drawn towards
politics.[15]

The significance of Gret Georg's and Hess' correspondence isn't just one of interest. It charts how a
woman feels about the catastrophe that has overwhelmed her country militarily, leaving it
economically destitute and with severe social maladies. She recognizes the fear of revolution and is
skeptical of politicians, whether of the Left or Right, whom she regards with disdain. The male
orientated egoists, seeking to manipulate the people through revolutionary politics, are ones she has
no time for. She warns Hess not to become politically engaged with extremists. She writes:
“Komm' mit, Rudi, mach's nach! An Egoismus gehen so viele zugrunde.”[15] This is another
warning that Hess totally ignores. Their relationship alters as Hess grows more egotistical and tries
to influence her and Milly Kleinmann through writing about the lectures he has attended at the
Thule Gesellschaft and about the theory Gottfried Feder has impressed him with; namely, Das
Manifest zur Brechnung der Zinnsknechtschaft. The disagreement Hess was to suffer through
alienating his cousin Gret and Milly only had the effect of strengthening the new anti-Semitic views
he had encountered. Yet in early, 1919, these views were only ones he was flirting with and hadn’t
fully absorbed them. At twenty-five years of age Hess was still not an anti-Semite. What was to
dramatically propel him towards racial-ideological extremism and anti-Semitism were the political
and revolutionary events in Munich in April/May, 1919, when Bavaria fell briefly under a socialist
and Soviet workers’ dictatorship – the so-called Räterrepublik. [16]

* * *

The historians Pätzold and Weißbecker view Hess as a young man conditioned by two
overwhelming courses of development: firstly his social-class upbringing and cultural mindset and
secondly his political radicalism which they see as a corollary of that mindset. [17] The first of
these developmental trends supposes a preconditioning of the human psyche whereby one decides
to lead one's life as a result of family, education and social-class values. According to this
interpretation Hess should have followed the logical consequential sequence of progressing from
educated eldest son to that of successor of his father's businesses. Hess didn't choose this course.
Pätzold and Weißbecker argue that this wasn't his fault, suggesting his social-class preconditioning
and nationalist outlook predetermined his patriotism and war mongering in 1914, just as other
young male bürgerlich volunteers were equally duped.[18] They argue that Hess was always

59
representative of his social-class – the Bildungsbürgertum – and that its elitist and cultural way of
seeing things preordained his choosing to become an officer and represent the Wilhelmine military
caste system.

Yet Hess' life wasn't predetermined as one may imagine. Individual choice in response to ever-
changing daily factors still had a part to play in his life. Despite the rigid conformity one feels as a
result of social-class pressures, some Freudian cultural historians such as Martin van Crevald have
argued that men often behaved in war with no regard for their previous upbringing or values but
were in fact very easily corrupted and encouraged to kill POWs behind the lines.[19] Even officers
who witnessed such atrocities either participated, too, or turned more often a blind eye. Such
culpability suggests that men of different social ranks, both younger ones and older ones, became
subsumed by the atrocity of war and thus, van Crevald argues, men were prepared to forgo personal
choice and slip into the mainstream of collective behavior. His argument powerful; one, reinforcing
the view that events and the extremity of war in particular can alter men regardless of their social
upbringing and class distinctions. What causes them to degenerate and to commit atrocities is the
subtle undisclosed will of the masses – in other words its inexplicable irrational element that
triumphs over compassion and intellect.[20]

Hess was never guilty – so we assume – of participating in acts of collective murder during the time
in the trenches. However, the extremity of events in Bavaria and the militarization of German
society through the right-wing paramilitary organizations – known as the Freikorps – certainly
animalized and brought out the basest intentions in Hess as he became along with his renegade
soldier paramilitary colleagues prepared to accept acts of atrocities against worker rebels and their
families, their wives and children. Van Crevald’s study of First World War atrocities thus doesn’t
become irrelevant as one tries to explain what turned a sensible young man such as Hess towards
extreme violence and anti-Semitism in April/May, 1919. When one considers the exchange of
letters between himself and Milly Kleinmann earlier that year Hess, one still has the impression of
Hess as a reasonably relaxed, likeable figure capable of humor and of providing his cousin with
interesting insights. Although his humor could prove laconic on account of his soldier’s experience
in the trenches, his degree of cynicism was held in check; and neither did he show any indication of
his later willingness to accept political atrocities and murder.

The intellectual influence Hess was subjected to in the Thule-Gesellschaft had a more latent effect.
It is argued here that the personal experience of street fighting in Munich and of atrocities being
committed there during the suppression of the Räterrepublik provided the shocking effect that was
to mark his personality. It would radicalize his anti-Semitism as the popular notion was circulated
by the Freikorps and the bürgerlich-Right intelligentsia in Munich that the Jews had been
responsible for the Räterrepublik. The notion of a “Jewish-Bolshevik” conspiracy was thus evident
in Hess before he became susceptible to the racial-ideological lectures of the Thule-Gesellschaft.
The argument here is that his personal experience on the streets of Munich shaped his devout anti-
Semitism and that only thereafter did he seek corroboration of his views via the Munich quasi-
religious and volkisch nationalist Thule-Gesellschaft. Moreover, only then can the significance of
cultural anti-Semitism in his social-class be seen to have had an effect. If anything this social-class
anti-Semitism, less ideological and willingly divisive in categorizing Jews as both good and bad,
now became a contributory factor in the development of Hess’ anti-Semitism. One may briefly
argue that his cultural anti-Semitism was something latent and non-activated. The shock of the
Munich Räterrepublik animated that which was previously passive in Hess and helped draw his
attention to the anti-Semitic legacy of the German Bildungsbürgertum, one of whose iconic figure
was unmistakably Friedrich Nietzsche. Ironically Hess would never read much of Nietzsche such

60
as his Jenseits Vom Guten und Bösen,[21] preferring more radical material such as Die Protokollen
der Weizen von Zion.[22]

Although Hess was become as a result of his Bavarian experience a more radicalized personality he
still didn’t possess the financial means with which to pursue a political career. In spring, 1919,
wasn't as yet discharged from his military service and was still in receipt of military pay. He wore
his uniform and had the available use of his aircraft lying with the rest of his dormant flying
squadron at Lechfeld. Munich became a hotbed of political radicalism as volkish-nationalist groups
and disparate ‘national socialist’ worker parties, among them the DAP [the future NSDAP],
appeared and proliferated, enjoying the protective custody of the Reich Kommissar, Gustav Ritter
von Kahr, and of the Munich police force. The German Left meanwhile felt horribly divided as the
breakup of the SPD-USPD government coalition in Berlin was mirrored by what occurred in
Munich. The USPD faction leader in the Bavarian Landtag, the philosopher and humanist Kurt
Eisner,[23] was murdered on 21st February, 1919, shot in the back by his assassin, a twenty-one
year old former officer and Freikorps fighter, Graf Anton Arco-Valley. Hess applauded the
murder, justifying it in terms of there being no other recourse of action against the scheming
intellectual ways of Jews and of the Left.[24] His outburst becomes even more significant as Eisner
was himself a Jew. Hess' conception of a radicalized intellectual Bolshevism became more
pronounced and the events in Munich in April/May, 1919, were to exacerbate his detrimental way
of thinking even further.

2.2 Freikorps Experience

The causal factors leading to Hess' virulent anti-Semitism lie not at first in his intellectual
acquisition of anti-Semitic ideas via the Thule-Gesellschaft, but rather through the process of
radicalization of German society, which gave him an underlying life experience capable of altering
his young personality. Hess had just celebrated his twenty-fifth birthday on 26th April, 1919, when
he became involved in the Freikorps. These right-wing paramilitary bands of soldiers were given a
license to do as they pleased by the army High Command in the face of a powerless Berlin
government. The original paramilitary units had been formed in Courland to help protect the
German Baltic community there against the Bolshevik Revolution. The idea of 'Jewish-
Bolshevism' was thus coined during the throes of the Russian Civil War [1917-1921].[25]
Assumptions about there being a worldwide Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy thus gained currency
among the fighting Freikorps detachments of the Baltic, who took their new mentality home with
them.[26] Hess and his brother, Alfred, impressed by the anti-Semitic indulgences of these units,
would, intrigued by the symbol of the 'Hakenkreuz' [the Swastika], paint its dreaded white colors on
their steel helmets. Hess wrote home to Reichsholdsgrün telling his parents of the surge of
excitement he and Alfred had felt.

The experience of the Freikorps affected other future personalities of the NSDAP; not least
Heinrich Himmler, who, born on 7th October, 1900, just missed out the First World War. He saw
compensation in the adventure and violent excess of post-war Germany, enjoying to his great
pleasure the execution of worker/soldier revolutionaries. His older brother, Gerbhard, a decorated
war hero, added to his patriotic frustrations, feeling unable to compete with the iconic status of his
brother.[27] Yet again the young Himmler compensated for this by turning to the ‘War
Romanticism’ he found in war literature such as Ernst Jünger's, whose evangelized spirit of war
helped to fashion a cult of quasi-spiritual war heroism for the National Socialist movement.[28]
Hess never encountered Himmler during the bloody civil conflict in Munich that spring, but he was
witness to the similar atrocities Himmler had taken pleasure in. Hess knew of the summary
executions of captured workers as he watched men and women led to the execution wall.[29]

61
Hess accepted political violence and dismissed the extremity of violence with his laconic humor.
His initial reaction to street altercations between rival ideological factions was to embed himself
once again, as in August, 1914, in the theater. In observational mood, and self-satisfied with his
appetite of personal elitism, he watched Goethe's Faust. It’s ironic how his eyes followed the story
of an individual's defilement as outside the theater's walls, society fractured in civil conflict. In
laconic mode he informs his parents nonchalantly, “Vorletzten Sonntag soll am Bahnhof ein kurzer
Kampf stattgefunden haben. Ich habe aber nichts davon gehört, da ich im Faust saß.”[30] This
kind of attitude reflects the same arrogance he had expressed while in the company of his favorite
aunts, the Stiflers, back in August, 1914. He was willing then, just like now, to exhibit a superficial
confidence. The Freikorps experience alters Hess' life. One may draw a parallel between his
experiences in April/May 1919 with August, 1914. We see, for instance, how his mind slipped into
a state of flux under societal pressures. In summer 1914 he was still recovering from his
unfortunate experience in Hamburg, leaving him confused about his sexuality and his love for
feminine beauty. He attempted to channel his feelings into a national-romanticist outlook, which
sadly only increased his he arrogance. 1914 acts as a caesura in his life as enlistment released him
from his internal turmoil. 1919 acted as a further caesura in his life. Without a job, limited to a low
income on his army pay, rapidly becoming worthless under the effects of rising inflation, he tried to
find work, following the advice of his cousin Gret Georg.[32] Sadly, again, he became distracted
by his personal egotism, spurred on by his former war comrade in the Fliegerkorps, Max Hofweber,
who introduced him to Karl Haushofer, who was willing to employ Hess in his small furniture
business (Die Münchener Wohnungs-Gesellschaft).[33]

Hess’ engagement in paramilitary activity, however, represented a ‘welcome break’ from having to
reintegrate into civilian life through work. As German society was crumbling under the forces of
radicalization and militarization in April/May, 1919, he became persuaded to join in the escapades
of the Freikorps, disguising himself on one occasion as a revolutionary worker by turning his
uniform inside out. Embellishing his act of bravado, he describes to his parents this under-cover
action: “Ich ging schnell heim, aß etwas und warf mich in ein Kostüm, das durch Schließen der
Windjacke und durch Wechseln der Kopfbedeckung schnell in eine Uniform zu verwandeln
war.”[34] He found, too, that his artillery training had been handy as he was able to recall
instinctively the mechanical procedures involved to help man a light artillery field piece used by his
Freikorps unit.[35] His feelings of unity for the men around him was based on the camaraderie of
the trenches that he had briefly experienced. In both instances Hess harbored romantic illusions, for
his sense of camaraderie in the trenches had been brutally crushed by the reality of dehumanization
and of horrific bombardments that would leave no man unscathed. For this reason friendships in
the trenches became short-lived. In the Freikorps friendships were exploited to help enact the
collective acts of murder and atrocity, thus embellishing a kind of ‘blood and death cult’ among
these men; many of whom went on to serve in the ranks of Hitler’s SA and SS.

Hess justifies the violence he sees on the basis that there was no other alternative of dealing with
the radicalized Left, which he depicts as the scourge of the times perceiving Bolshevism as a
infiltrating corruptible source. The Freikorps soldiers owed their loyalty not to the army or to a
particular unit but to the debonair leadership qualities of particular self-elected officers, who ruled
over their followers in the manner of charismatic warlords.[36] Hess doesn't identify with one of
his own unit’s leaders, but he does express admiration for the Freikorps formations under the
legendary figure of General Lettow-Vorbeck,[37] the general who had commanded German and
German colonial forces – the famed Askaries – in German East Africa and Mozambique against the
pursuing British.[38] Hess praises the general in one of his letters home, but his praise goes
unacknowledged. He remains an isolated figure much as he had been during the time of his service
with the German Army in the trenches. Hess’ notion of war camaraderie was thus a fallacy.

62
Hess’ search for friendship through soldierly camaraderie becomes an eager objective, more so as
he is unable to secure his place in civilian life through secure lasting friendships. Those he did have
such as to Max Hofweber were superficial.[39] After the Freikorps were disbanded, once their
victory against the Left had been achieved, many of these men, including Hess, in pursuit of
camaraderie, joined patriotic associations. One of these was Hess’ former Fliegerkorps, Jagst
(Squadron) 35, which held an association reunion on 19th May, 1921 in Munich, to which Hess was
invited.[40] Amongst former comrades of his Fliegerkorps unit he enjoyed march-pasts, was able
to dress up in his old flyer's uniform and take part, too, in a flying display in his Fokker D. VII
aircraft, one that hadn’t been destroyed yet under the terms of the Versailles Treaty. There were
guest speakers at such festival reunions. On this occasion Hess heard Wolfram Freiherr von
Richthofen [1895-1945], the ambitious aviator who went on to play an important part in Hitler's
Luftwaffe.[41] Another speaker present was Johann Baptist Walz [1894-?], another veteran, though
one who understood the quasi-spiritual affinities of war similar to dynamic of war propounded in
the war literature of Ernst Jünger. Hess loved intuitively this expression of the quasi-spiritual,
which he found helped him to motivate his romantic cult of political violence.

After the reunion of the Fliegerkorps squadron, Hess participated in the special morning prayers
(Trauergottesdienst) for the war dead, which took place the following day. Prominent personalities
present included Ludendorff, the Bavarian Minister-President, General Gustav Ritter von Kahr, and
Erich Escherich, founder of the Bavarian Escherich Organization, a reserve organization of
paramilitary troops supposedly supporting the Reich government. Hess endeavored to have a word
with von Kahr and succeeded in having a short conversation with him. He was surprised to by the
warm geniality of the highly esteemed Wilhelmine figure. Nothing meaningful, however, was truly
said; just a repetition of clichés about the war dead and the nation's rebirth. For a short while Hess
felt he was somebody and writes proudly to his parents of his chat with such a prominent person.
He writes: “Ich habe mich gefreut, einen so kerndeutschen, aufrechten Mann zu sehen. Schlicht,
gerade und ehrenhaft bis zum letzten. Wir können uns freuen, in Bayern diesen Mann an der Spitze
zu haben.” Just over three months later von Kahr would have to resign his position because of his
refusal to comply with the Reich government's prosecution of Mathias Erzberger's murderers.[42]

We see how Hess was clearly influenced by the soldierly aspect in his life; an influence that at this
juncture in his development ran parallel with his intellectual yearnings. In some ways he envisaged
himself as a ‘soldier-intellectual’ exactly as Karl Haushofer would do. Their friendship, which
arose, as previously mentioned, as a result of the introductions via Max Hofweber, was to provide
Hess with the much needed warmth of personal friendship, which had been so lacking in his life.
The friendship he was to secure with Haushofer also provided with an Ersatz-Vater model [that of a
surrogate father figure]. Yet in intellectual terms Hess was more persuasively swayed by the theory
of ‘Das Manifest zur Brechnung der Zinnsknechtschaft’ propagated by Gottfried Feder. His interest
for Feder’s anti-Semitism marks his development as an intellectual anti-Semite. He was at only just
twenty-five years of age motivated by a need to achieve something radical and whereas he took
inspiration from Feder’s writing, it was the personal warmth assured to him by Haushofer that
assisted his emotive attributes. Extremely thankful, Hess receives a letter from Haushofer, in which
the latter informs him how soon “The Day of Revenge” [“Der Tag der Rache”] will come for
Germany against her enemies. The enemy specified is the Entente powers; and not as Feder was
propagating the “Jew” and “Jewish-Capitalism.” Hess saw revenge differently from Haushofer on
account of his rapidly developing anti-Semitism.

“Jewish-Bolshevism” was a mode of thinking Hess adopted under the influence of Alfred
Rosenberg’s lectures at the Thule-Gesellschaft, although, as we have seen, the “seeds” of his
“Jewish-Bolshevism” had already been previously sowed by his Freikorps experience. Under

63
Rosenberg he began quickly to appreciate the so-called wider dimension of the apparent 'World
Jewish Conspiracy.' Rosenberg saw this being hated by Moscow, although under Feder’s influence
Hess recognized the apparently more powerful connection between “Jewish monopoly Capitalism”
and the Entente. Rather than fixating his hatred on the Soviets and on Moscow, Hess believed the
“World Jewish Conspiracy” incorporated both “Jewish-Capitalism” and “Jewish-Bolshevism.” His
fears of the latter were confirmed through his experience of the Räterrepublik and of the Jewish
intellectuals such as Eugene Levine who had participated in the Soviet seizure of power. Levine,
however, had like other Jews regarded himself as part of a German/German-Jewish symbiosis and
never lost sight of these cultural roots despite his internationalism. The latter gave him a distinct
feeling for humanity. The fact that Levine and others were shot out of hand by the Freikorps was
something that didn’t disturb Hess; conscience. He believed such Jews needed to be killed. [43]

* * *

The news of the peace conditions set by the Entente on 7th May, 1919, radicalized Hess' emotions.
His family was affected, too, by the bitter disappointments the Entente Note announced: namely the
huge reparations bill Germany was expected to pay. Hess’ mother was forced to abandon her belief
in humanism and internationalism as she castigated the American President, whom she held
responsible for having deceived Germany with his Fourteen Points. Woodrow Wilson, though, was
encountering great difficulty at home in trying to convince American opinion about America’s
world role, but he was unable to defeat the Isolationist Lobby in the Senate and in the House of
Representatives. Lloyd George and Clemenceau, 'the Old Tiger', were running proceedings at
Versailles and it was clear that French demands for financial compensation and a guarantee of her
borders would decide the principal outcome of the Versailles settlement. In the Entente diplomatic
note the bill for reparations, reaching into millions of Reich Marks, was to contribute to Germany’s
fractured state and spiral of radicalization. With the British naval blockade still in force, the
‘Revisionist’ historian, Dirk Bavenbamm portrays the extent of misery and woe of the Germans,
writing: “Zwei Millionen deutsche Soldaten waren gefallen oder verschollen. Etwa 800. 000
Menschenleben hatte die Hungerblockade in der deutschen Zivilbevölkerung gefordert.”[44] Yet,
one must wary of such statistics being used for the wrong agenda, for it is in this context that
Bavenbamm justifies Hess’ active engagement in right-wing politics. As a historian he focuses on
Hess’ agenda to find the means for Germany’s ‘national re-birth.’ He emphasises nationalist
questions and overlooks Hess’ anti-Semitism during these decisive formative years.

Klara Hess explodes in anger against the Entente, informing her son: “Das Wilson dieser Punkte
Deutschland zum Nachgeben veranlaß hat!”[45] She recoils against the democratic ideals of the
American President, arguing Germany has been betrayed: “Mit seinen 14 Punkten hat er unser Volk
gefangen wie mit Speck die Mäuse.”[46] Gret Georg also felt herself drawn out into the whirlpool
of dissatisfaction and nationalist outburst. The Reparations Bill destroyed all illusions among the
German Bürgertum that a peace, a genuine peace, between nations with neither victors or
vanquished, was realizable. From now on the obscure volkish-nationalist parties of the far-Right,
such as the DAP [Deutsche Arbeiter Partei], would remonstrate against Versailles, making it and
the Reparations Question as one of the key significant points of German national politics. Every
electorate would be affected and have views on this question; and here the DAP [soon to become
the NSDAP] had from September 12th, 1919,[47] onwards a most vociferous and emotive speaker
among its ranks ready to impress anyone of any social-class background willing to hear: the man
concerned had just been released from his propaganda duty for the army. This was the beginning of
the rise of Adolf Hitler.

64
2.3 Intellectual Anti-Semite

In October, 1918, Hess joined the Thule-Gesellschaft in Munich and received a new intellectual
impetus.[48] Enjoying the weekly lectures he called it “meine Organisation.”[49] It was a
‘Germanic Order’ with quasi-religious and anti-Semitic interests. Its most influential personality
was Dietrich Eckart [1868-1923], a failed newspaper journalist, who was also attached to one of the
small volkish-nationalist parties on the Munich scene, the DAP (Deutsche Arbeiter Partei). This
had been founded by a locomotive engineer, Karl Harrer, and the wayward intellectual, Anton
Drexler [1884-1942]. The select group would meet in a small back room behind one of Munich's
brewery halls. They owned a newspaper, Der Völkischer Beobachter, whose editor was Eckart, but
it was seriously in debt. These worries were oblivious to Hess, who, for the six months of his
frequenting the society, covered his own financial outlay through his obligatory army air force pay.
He appeared a casual observer only moderately interested in the society and in the obscure party he
had come to hear about. At this time Hess was living in Munich with his brother Alfred in pension
houses and by family relatives. Both brothers became politically engaged, but not for the DAP,
which they regarded as too insignificant. Their first political canvassing they carried out for the
DNVP, one of the respectable parties of the bürgerlich-Right. The reason for this decision lay in
the brothers’ sharing of their father's political outlook, who was a DNVP supporter. Hess, probably
under the influence of the Thule-Gesellschaft, was marginally attracted to some of the anti-Semitic
literature he was asked by the local DNVP Munich Office to distribute during the run up to the local
elections in May, 1919.

Why did Hess join the Thule-Gesellschaft and find anti-Semitism so attractive? In answer to this
one sees how his intellect was searching for a satisfactory explanation for the causes of Germany's
humiliation and defeat. He already had a ‘national socialist’ outlook in the sense of what Helmut
Theissen describes as “non-Marxist socialism.” Yet Hess had arrived at this way of thinking via the
trenches where his illusions about soldierly camaraderie had first found expression; camaraderie, as
we have seen, that became more tangible through his Munich Freikorps experience. The longing
for collective friendship had attracted to the paramilitaries, but why did he need the anti-Semitism
offered by the Thule-Gesellschaft when he seemingly had his anti-Semitic quota being fulfilled by
the Freikorps. In answer to this, the Freikorps were soon to be disbanded under the terms of the
Versailles settlement. Bearing in mind, too, Hess, cultured background as a son of the
Bildungsbürgertum it remained only one logical step for him to turn to his original intellectual
pursuits cut short by the war back in 1914. Hess was a young man of the theater, which he liked to
frequent, and the thought may have occurred at the back of his mind that the Thule-Gesellschaft
was a kind of political theater for him. He needn’t have to participate, nor did he want to. His
political activism was still latent. What he was doing was making feelings; seeing how he felt
within himself in these new intellectual surroundings – rather pseudo-intellectual surroundings –
that he didn’t feel intimidated by as he did when he accepted the challenge to begin his university
studies at the University of Munich, studying Volkswirtschaft [the national people’s economy].
Probably this university study drew him closer to the economic theorizing within the Thule
Gesellschaft offered by Feder. Even so, if it hadn’t been at the insistence of his associate Max
Hofweber to visit the society one evening out of curiosity he may never have joined it.[50] In these
terms Hofweber, a figure passing amiably through Hess’ life without any secondary thought for
him, actually altered his life immeasurably, for here at the society he encountered not only Feder,
Eckart and Rosenberg, but also Adolf Hitler.

Hofweber would prove to have another substantial effect upon Hess’ young life, for he it was, who
had found him a job with the furniture company, Die Münchener Wohnungskunst G. m. b. H., run
by Dr. Karl Haushofer. Hess became attracted by the prospect of being involved with the small

65
firm, not because he was impressed by Haushofer’s credentials, but because he was attracted by
Hofweber’s promise of being able to make money. This may seem to historians as not quite the
starting point of the Haushofer-Hess relationship, for much has been written in the current
historiography, especially by the historian Bruno Hipler, about how Haushofer, a former
commander of an artillery brigade on the Western Front and also quite an imposing intellectual
figure with volkish-nationalist acclaim surrounding his first major publication Dai Nihon [Berlin,
1913], was supposed to have captivated Hess’ attention from the outset. However, the truth of the
matter lay in the fact that Hess had been beguiled by Hofweber, who remains to this day an
enigmatic character. We know little about him other than through the personal reminiscences of
Hess. Of course there are the documents in the national Bundesarchiv relating to his personal war
service, but these throw no extra-light on his relationship to Hess. He is almost a shadow; someone
who passes briefly through Hess’ life and yet manages to affect dramatically. The drama that was
to be played out between Hess and Haushofer, giving rise to a close but also contradictory
relationship wasn’t there from the beginning. Indeed it was Haushofer who at first hugged the
background in Hess’ life at this juncture, while Hofweber, a ‘comrade’ similar in age and with a
knack for making quick money, appears albeit briefly as a model of influence; so much so that Hess
was to write in one of his personal letters to his parents, expressing his admiration for Hofweber,
someone he assumed erroneously would be his friend. Hess writes: “Er reiste geschäftlich für die
Firma Lanz her. Gleichzeitig wollte er nach der GmbH sehen.”[51] The impression is of a figure,
who has connections and Hess wanted to make the most out of these lucratively, for in the
inflationary and unemployment cycles money was becoming fast an endemic problem and urgent
need.

If anything one can't begin a political career without money. Hitler was to find this out on joining
the DAP, which quickly under his influence was renamed the NSDAP. He had been sworn into the
Party as Member 555 (in fact he was Number 55 as the party was so small) by Anton Drexler. It
was with the agreement of the party Central Committee comprising Drexler, Harrer and Eckart, that
Hitler was taken on full time with pay for his expenses, for so highly did his three admirers value
him. Hess was not an admirer, but was curiously interested in this rabble rouser, whose
propagandistic gifts he immediately recognized. He himself was unable to join party as no one was
willing to invest in him and pay for his expenses, for Hess had assumed a passive role and didn’t
seem to offer anyone or any party a particular future. He thus remained fixed to the background,
participating and listening to lectures, but on the whole keeping a low profile. Without money and
an independent existence he could pursue politics seriously. Perhaps his one asset was to take the
economic theorizing of Gottfried Feder seriously, but there was no room either for becoming a full
time follower of his, especially as time and the little money he had from his parents were there to
finance his university degree.[52] It seems that if his well-to-aunt in Neuchâtel had not sent him
some Swiss Gold Francs as an investment and family heirloom Hess would have been pretty much
bereft of the money needed to begin his independent life style as an NSDAP politician. Hence, as a
result of good fortune he was able to choose the life he wanted. It was not force of circumstance
that prevented from choosing an alternative bürgerlich life and professional career. It was rather
the family support from his distant that enabled to consciously make the decision of joining the
NSDAP in August, 1920;[53] and the role he adopted for himself was that of a self-styled
intellectual anti-Semite following in the theoretical footsteps of Gottfried Feder.

* * *

A letter dated 10th June, 1920, to his mother reveals the twenty-six year old Hess setting down the
basis of his newly acquired anti-Semitism. As yet he had no political audience. He wasn't at this
juncture the politician of some two months later; rather an associate or as one may a loose non-

66
affiliated follower of the NSDAP and of the message of anti-Semitism and hatred for which it stood
for. The letter is revealing because it gives an indication of what direction Hess was heading in.
His particular ax to grind was that of the state of the German worker, who he pitied and who he felt
had been robbed by the “capitalist Jew.” He had no affinity with any of the German working-class.
He didn't know any workers. Yet because of the constant theme of ‘self sacrifice’ he had been
brought up with and had had inculcated in him through his Wilhelmine schooling, he identified with
an illusionary stereotype of worker, the one he had observed at distant quarters or had read about in
journals. The factory place he didn’t know; and the hard grinding of labor in mines and workshops
was also unknown to him. What he admired was an archetypal ideal; an illusion; an abstract
concept of who the workers actually were. This distance from the proletariat, however, wasn’t
necessarily a handicap, as he saw his main aim as intellectual and scholarly and learn all there was
about political economy, although with a narrow anti-Semitic framework. Feder was a guide, but
he used some of his arguments for his own expression and theorizing in his university essays, which
from some quarters, among conservative and anti-Semitic lectures won some approval.

Feder’s line of argument was encapsulated by the phrase he had coined for the NSDAP and his
Thule-Gesellschaft lectures: namely “Die Brechung der Zinnsknechtschaft.” He argued that
because bürgerlich employers had become indebted to Jews they had to lay workers off if the debt
was to be paid; if not they ran risk of accumulating higher back-payments of interest and of facing
the possibility, with cuts in their labor force, of insolvency and bankruptcy. Every transaction,
argued this self-styled mentor for the NSDAP, was carried out with high interest attached to it. He
intimates that this paying back of excessive 'Jewish interest' to Jewish creditors was crippling
German Capitalism, the German state [who according to his theory was also indebted to Jews] and
to the already precarious position of the German Kleinbürgertum [the petit-bourgeoisie]. Not only
were industrialists and business managers financially caught by the intrigues of Jewish finance-
capital, went the train of Feder’s thought, but so too was the German state caught up in this 'Jewish
spiral' of wheeling and dealing with insurmountable interest loans. He published his ideas as a
manifesto, Das Manifest zur Brechung der Zinnsknechtschaft,[54] and in his hate-propaganda
portrayed “the Jew” as a threatening and nefarious figure, one he inherited from the cultural
stereotype of “the Jew” as the money lender as so often was portrayed in the anti-Semitic annals of
the German Bildungsbürgertum. In this respect Feder was neither original nor creative in his ideas,
but at least he inscribed into the modern jargon and theorizing of up-to-date study of political
economy; and it was this that gave his work some substance. It was certainly a factor that attracted
Hess to his ideas, which were essentially ‘socialist’ in their precise anti-Semitic context, but
paradoxically his ideas were intended to help assist the German petit-bourgeoisie out of its critical
inflationary and economically perilous state. In demanding ‘socialist’ confiscations of Jewish
wealth he intended to help assist the impoverished German social classes of all distinctions. With
his hatred firmly against the Jews, Feder was to proscribe the course for the NSDAP in its party
program of 24th February, 1920, especially its Point 16, in which it was stated unequivocally: “Wir
fordern die Schaffung eines gesunden Mittelstandes und seine Erhaltung, sofortige
Kommunalisierung der Groß-Warenhäuser und ihre Vermietung zu billigen Preisen an kleine
Gewerbtreibende (...)”[55]

In his June letter to his mother, Hess asks the rhetorical question: “Wann wird endlich diese
künstliche Mauer zwischen Arbeiter und Bürger eingerissen?”[56] Seeing an artificial wall having
been erected between employer and worker, he blames this obstacle on the mismanagement of the
Jews and on “the lies” of, in his view, “a Jewish-infested media” in Berlin; a city popularly
identified among the far-Right as “Red Berlin.” In answer to the question he poses above he writes:
“Solange das Judenpack Nutzen davon hat, sicher nicht.”[57] His aggressiveness is self-evident.
He argues the Jews want things to exist according to “divide and rule,” and as long as they benefit.

67
He sees them decidedly working against the patriotic interest and, pointing his accusing finger
further, he pretends he and his colleagues in the Thule-Gesellschaft are acquainted with the full
scope of the “hidden” and “surreptitious ways” of the Jews. He proclaims: “Die wenigsten Leute
bei uns ahnen, wo die wirklichen Drahtzieher sitzen.” He tells his mother, as if he is the most
informed person in the family regarding the “Jewish Question,” that she should read Judas
Schuldbuch,[58] an anti-Semitic magazine, one circulated by the Thule-Gesellschaft. IN short he
want his reading to become her reading, so that he may have the common bond he had once shared
with her, but such dictatorial play-acting offended his mother, who wouldn’t concede to his
excessive anti-Semitism; a heavy dose of which was unbearable for her for she remained steadfast
by the cultural dictum of her social-class that there were equally as many “good Jews” to be found
as “bad ones.” His mother tried to alter the course of thinking and hoped to reactivate his
intellectual yearnings in a more serious direction. For this reason she proposed that he ought to
read John Maynard Keynes’ Economic Consequences of the Peace [London, 1919], which was
translated into German in 1922.[59] Hess declined the offer.

Hess had nothing to say in his letters other than utter nationalist and anti-Semitic clichés and
diatribes. His only audience at this stage in his life was his parents. His father expressed moderate
approval, while his mother rejecting him. For this reason Hess tried to widen his circle of influence
by addressing cousin, Milly Kleinmann. In a letter to her, dated 3rd July, 1921,[60] he reiterates the
points of Feder's complicated manifesto as well as aspects of the NSDAP party program. He
explains his views via a parable, using the scenario of everyday life. He captures his cousin’s
conscience, well knowing she is angry about the state’s treatment of widows and the pensioners,
whose limited funds had been made worthless through rising inflation. In July, 1921 there was 76.7
RM to the US Dollar. A year later this was 493.2 RM and a year after that, in January, 1923, at the
beginning of the hyper-inflationary spiral, 17, 972.0 RM. [61] These rises exacted a terrible cost
upon the vulnerable among the unemployed, women, children and the elderly who under a lack of
state welfare provision and as a result of a loss of savings had little to spare for a healthy weekly
diet. Many – not just among the traditionally poor, but also among ‘proletarianized’ bürgerlich
families – were to suffer illness especially during the outbreak of the Spanish influenza, which was
to kill millions. Hess used this terrible example of social and economic poverty to justify his
interpretation of Feder's views. He presented his case thus: imagine a certain person, who usually
worked a 14 hour day and had two months off. It wouldn't be right, he insists, to still be paid. He
argues arrogantly that money is the product of achieved labor and that money can't be created out of
itself [“Denn Geld ist Anweisung auf geleistete Arbeit und kann nicht aus sich selbst heraus neues
Geld erzeugen.”].[62] This was his attempt to sound intellectually high-brow, even though he didn't
fully understand the arguments he was supposed to be representing. The basic upshot of what he
meant was that without conscious hard work the German economy wouldn't recover.

Hess goes on to explain that if someone else works 14 hours and earns more than his fair due then
that extra sum may be used for recreation and if, he continues, the person concerned saves enough
over a given period of time he can provide himself with a pension for his old age. A student, he
adds, receives his money from the earned labor of his father. He argues it is right for a young
person to be supported in such a way because he or she will in the long term have a highly rated job
with good prospects, a good salary and the opportunity to pay the debt back. He then gives his
prose style a further injection with a radical statement, designed to shock his cousin: “Heute wird
Arbeit, zu welcher Vorbildung nötig war, meist schlechter bezahlt als andere.”[63] He shows how a
student can't under the existing economic picture expect to have that well salaried job as a result of
the spiraling inflation and the limited ability of an employer to afford such good wages. Thus the
student can't pay back the loan he owes. In this parable the state is metaphorically represented by
the father figure. What it has lent it can't get back. To recoup its losses the state tries to transfer its

68
paper money into interest free money. According to Hess' analogy the state cannot get its
investment back and so he argues this is precisely how the Wilhelmine system collapsed at the end
of the First World War under a state of rising debt, unable to reclaim its investments in industry and
war production.

Hess blames the Jews as money lenders; a jibe at Walther Rathenau, the German-Jewish
industrialist who had in fact volunteered his services to the Reich government, had been a state
minister during the first two years of the war and had through incredible endeavor and at a cost of
his personal fortune helped to rationalize war production. Rathenau was a patriotic Jew in every
sense of the word and at whose funeral, following his assassination in 1922 by former Freikorps
activists, had pomp and circumstance and honorary recognition from public figures as the order of
the day. In Nazi ideology Rathenau represents the face of Jewish high-finance. Walther Ricardo
Darré would publish work using Rathenau to explain why the Assimilated Jew could not be
permitted to integrate within Aryan society. Hess himself applauded Rathenau's murder when he
first heard of it. He saw patriotism only as a right belonging to Aryans, as he began formulating in
his own mind, his first ideas for the racial community. Above all he emphasized the resurgence of
the German national character and of the prospect of a 'War of Revenge' against the Entente, telling
Milly, “Wir hoffen aber, dass der Tag kommt, da Deutsche auch für reindeutsche Bewegungen mit
nur ideellem Ziel großzügig geben. Dann sind wir auch dem Endziel vieles näher, dieses aber ist
Deutschlands Freiheit!”[64]

Hess' hope was that economic downturns and high inflation would drive the working-class into the
arms of the NSDAP, asserting that whatever little they had in the way of a few extra Pfennigs they
would hand to the party. He continues explaining to Milly, “Wie groß die Opferbereitschaft ist,
mögest Du daraus ersehen, dass Arbeiter einen Teil ihres Gehaltes für die Bewegung bringen
[darunter ehemalige Kommunisten] und Studenten sehr schlecht in Studenten- und Volksküchen
essen, um das auf die Weise Ersparte gleichfalls [zu] geben.”[65] He expresses immaturity and a
naïve idealism, believing the NSDAP capable of becoming an essentially worker movement with
even the prospect of appealing to former KPD members. He yearns for a workable relationship
between the working-class, youth and the intelligentsia, which he envisages altering Germany's
destiny. The interrelated connections between the elite and workers he holds dear, seeing in his
political struggle a degree of intellectual endeavor and sacrifice. He was gradually developing his
prototype model for the future NS-Volksgemeinschaft.

* * *

The party didn't have the strong working-class orientation Hess imagined it to have. In the early
1920s the NSDAP was essentially kleinbürgerlich (petite bourgeois) in composition and had very
few workers attached to it. It was rather small time traders and bankrupt shopkeepers who wanted
to air their grievances through the NSDAP. The problem of the party's social-class orientation was
one Feder tried to address by wishing to parcel out Jewish property to kleinbürgerlich supporters. It
was an attempt to remain socialist orientated, even though such parceling out affected the needs of
the workers. In refusing to admit to the true nature of the party's kleinbürgerlich following its
socialism, especially when expressed by the ‘Otto Strasser Group’ during the 1920s,[66] would go
against the entrepreneurial spirit of the small-time trader, shopkeeper and business owner. To
resolve the gap between the program aims and the wishes of the party's followers, Hitler
emphasized nationalization only so long as it affected and impoverished the Jews and not 'decent'
Aryans.

69
Hess' socialist theorizing benefited from Gottfried Feder's intellectual influence. He accepted
Feder's archetypal stereotype of the Jewish moneylender; a racial stereotype Hess would later
uphold more strongly in his capacity as “Der Stellvertreter des Führers,” especially during 1940
when the anti-Semitic movie Jud Süß, which projects “the Jew” as the devious moneylender and
corrupter, was shown in public cinemas and especially to the German Army. Jud Süß was meant to
have been based on the historical figure who had led a life of intrigue and wealth in Mannheim.
Hess expresses his Jew-hatred with not only a stereotype in mind of the Jews, but also of the
German working-class, which he doesn't really know. In his letters to Milly Kleinmann he wants
her to become convinced of his anti-Semitism, which he sees as a vehicle for achieving social-class
unity. The German working-class, he argues, through indulging in “Die Judenfrage” would not
only free itself from the shackles of “Jewish monopoly Capitalism,” but also free itself enabling it
to bond with other social classes. He therefore in his own mind saw a resolving of the 'Jewish
Problem' as a helpful means towards forging a united Volksgemeinschaft. The masses, in which he
has faith, he describes as Deutschtum; using volkish-nationalist vocabulary again, he refers to the
lower social-classes as Volksschichten.[67]

Hess' views in his letters to Milly Kleinmann are significant because they reveal his very first in-
depth appreciation of Hitler. These help us to understand how he initially regarded Hitler, not in the
role of a future national leader or dictator, but as a successful activist and propagandist, whom he
hoped would transform the NSDAP into a mass movement, centered on the working-class in a
projected vanguard role. He informs his cousin: “Mit seinem unbeugsamen Willen arbeitet er
[Hitler] jetzt in anderer Richtung für das Großdeutschland, das er anstrebt. Sein Grundgedanke ist,
die Brücke zu schlagen zwischen den Volksschichten, einen Sozialismus zu gründen auf nationaler
Grundlage.”[68] Hess, though, misunderstands Hitler's motives. He thinks he aims to unify
different social-classes through political activism. Hitler's agenda was, however, something
different. It was self-seeking, neither developing contact to the working-class nor emphasizing the
party's socialism and endeavored to advance the cause of 'Putsch Politics' through making the
paramilitary arm of the party, Die Sturmabteilung [SA],[69] the vehicle for his personal power.[70]
In August, 1921, Hitler removed the Central Committee and became the party's sole leader. From
this point on the NSDAP was a Hitler-party.[71]

It is the accepted historical view that Hess slavishly followed Hitler through encouraging the Fuhrer
cult. Hitler's other supporters – Dietrich Eckart and Hermann Esser – are credited with the
supposed 'virtue' of this cult achievement, as they exaggerated first the NSDAP leader's presentation
as a 'superhuman'. They proclaimed the legend of Hitler's apparent infallible qualities, with
Hermann Esser coining the salutation 'Der Führer’ after a Hitler speech at the Zirkus Krone in
1921. They evolved the idea of “Der Führerprinzip,” which set the ground rules for their view of
the NSDAP as a Hitler-party, emphasizing authority and obedience. Hess in contrast preferred his
own student agenda of economics and widening electoral appeal through intellect and
campaigning. He in contrast to Eckart and Esser saw the party not as a Hitler-party – because of the
limitations a personality dominated party had – but as a party with the potentiality of becoming a
mass-movement. To help engineer this feat Hess envisaged Hitler as a leader acting as a vehicle for
nationalist and social-class unity through selfless devotion. This contrasted with the self-centered
party Hitler was developing with the purpose of seizing political power through a Putsch.

As a previous Putsch attempt carried out by Dr. Kapp in association with Freikorps units had
already failed in Berlin, Hess remained skeptical of paramilitary politics and political adventure and
argued in favor of a secure strategy through alliance building and contacts to the former Wilhelmine
elite. He did this not because he wanted to see them invest in their old ways and rule through an
authoritarian oligarchy, but because he wanted them to break their own social-class loyalties and

70
come over to the side of the NSDAP. For this reason he wrote to Ludendorff, first in August, 1920,
with the intention of winning his approbation for a NSDAP-led nationalist coalition government.
This conflicted with Hitler's priority of achieving a dictatorship for himself, but bearing in mind the
small following of the party, Hess advocated pragmatism and saw a working partnership with
Ludendorff as desirable. He tried to impress the general with Hitler's supposed educated and
cultured qualities, which he deliberately magnified, well knowing that Hitler possessed a darker
side, carried a bull whip at meetings and was prone to irrationality. Hess wanted to improve his
'good side' from the point of view of an educated mind of the Bildungsbürgertum. Among Hitler's
qualities, he included his anti-Semitism, commenting upon the extraordinary success the NSDAP
leader had in using it as a vehicle for nationalist unity, “Die Erfolge, die er erzielte, sind größer als
die irgendeiner sonstigen Bewegung z. Zt.”[72]

Hess' focused in these early days not on developing the Hitler cult of personality [to be enshrined as
the 'Hitler-Myth'] but more pragmatically on ways to raise party finances. The party budget was in
a morose state. Hess felt an underlying agony, empathizing with the grass roots party members
who sacrificed their last Pfennig for the movement: “Mein ganzer Schmerz ist immer nur, dass ich
geldlich nicht mehr für die Bewegung tun kann, für die Bewegung, die in meinen Augen in erster
Linie dazu berufen ist, Deutschland aus dem Sumpf herauszuhelfen.” [73] Hess' idealism preached
egalitarianism, with each party member contributing as much as he could through neighborhood
calls and the selling of the party newspaper, Der Völkische Beobachter. He loved to identify with
the party workers at the lower rung of the party hierarchy, admiring them for their steadfast loyalty
to the movement. This gave him inspiration for the idea of nation building and for using the party
as a vehicle for national identity. To his mind this was more attractive than party elitism and
paramilitary politics.

Hess set out his ideas accordingly in one of his first prominent propaganda articles entitled Wie
sieht der Bolshewismus in Wahrheit aus. He reveals through this propaganda summary of “Jewish-
Bolshevism,” a foreign policy angle designed to place the party's development at home in
perspective. He recognized how the NSDAP could justify itself as a 'nationalist socialist’ party by
identifying the ideological enemy of international Marxism led in his view by Moscow. His article
aimed to discredit the Soviet regime as 'Jewish-infested' with Jews occupying the upper echelons of
the Soviet Communist Party. Although a number of Jews such as Lev Bronstein ('Trotsky'), Nikolai
Buhkarin and Zinoviev occupied prominent positions, the image of Jewish influence was
exaggerated to the wildest proportions. Alfred Rosenberg, fellow member of the Thule-
Gesellschaft and self-styled NSDAP intellectual, reiterated these exaggerated anti-Jewish
perceptions of Bolshevism, giving further credence to the Nazi ideological concept of “Jewish-
Bolshevism.” Conceptualizing the enemy in an ideological framework appeared important to Hess,
who wished to intellectualize the idea of a “World Jewish Conspiracy,” framing it on the one hand
as “Jewish-Bolshevism” in the East and as “Jewish-Capitalism” in the West.

Hess argued that a thorough research of the perceived 'Jewish Problem' was necessary first so as to
justify arguments when politically canvassing among the different social-classes. Thus he regarded
acquiring knowledge as the first step before achieving mass political mobilization. His first years in
the party are passive ones, with him learning about and defining his ideological landscape. This
was in stark contrast to Hitler who busied himself with an irrational political activism, seeing not
the purpose of political power but just the means. His “Putsch Politics” would lead to disaster and
the failed Putsch attempt of 9th November, 1923. Hess preferred a rationalized course of political
development for the party, basing this responsibility on the party’s educated elite to guide the grass
roots. His elitism led to his university education – he enrolled at the University of Munich to study
'peoples' economy ('Volkswirtschaft') in autumn 1919 – and by reading more material he gathered a

71
wider perspective of ideological matters. He became interested in Russia and regretted the demise
of its ruling class, which had had a strong ethnic German contingent, and condemned the 'Russian
Revolution'. His views were influenced through his reading, especially of the Russian emigré
author R. Nilostowski, whose Der Blutrausch des Bolshewismus magnified the crimes of the Cheka,
the Soviet secret police.

* * *

Hess' anti-Semitic 'World View' investigated Jewish immigration. He focused his attention on Das
Berliner Arbeiter-Fürsorge-Amt der jüdischen Organisationen Deutschlands,[74] which he
regarded as a camouflage organization for disguising large-scale Jewish immigration from the
former Czarist empire. He writes of a circular distributed by this organization on 29th September,
1929, in which it is indicated that 14, 000 passports have been handed out to Jews of Russian
descent. He gives the impression of a Jewish 'invasion' being supported by socialist German-Jews.
He contributes to an anti-Semitic interpretation of “The Stab-in-the Back Myth,” asserting German-
Jews showed no loyalty to the state they served as officials, especially when it came down to
concealing surreptitious Jewish immigration.[75] He sees the new Jewish arrivals as “the carriers”
of the Bolshevik idea.

Das Deutsche Führerlexikon for 1934/35 gives the impression of Hess as an intellectual talent. It
charts his progressive development and acquired political status with brevity, giving the suggestion
of profundity in his achievements: “Berufsgang u.a.: Studiert ab 1920 in München Volkswirtschaft,
Geschichte, Geopolitik; tritt Juni 1920 der NSDAP bei und kommt bald Adolf Hitler persönlich
nahe.” The impression created is one of Hess being intellectually at Hitler's side – a tailor made
view to suit the Nazi reading public of the time.[76] Hess chose Volkswirtschaft as a university
discipline to appear revolutionary. People's economy implied something for the people and
something against the elites. It was clear he wanted to obstruct the elites from re-asserting their
former position. He wanted in actual fact to encourage former Wilhelmine figures, notably Gustav
Ritter von Kahr, to break with their own social-class loyalties and join the NSDAP.

This reveals Hess' naïve approach to politics during his early years. He wanted to break the social-
class loyalties not just of the aristocratic reactionaries, but of the Bürgertum and of the working-
class, too, molding them into a nationalist entity through the NSDAP. His plan was to articulate the
arguments of propaganda based on the knowledge of racial-ideological factors he had gathered. His
particular focus of attention was on bürgerlich voters and the working-class, with the intention of
providing them with intellectual arguments for them to digest and accept such as Gottfried Feder's
idea of Leihkapital, which he defines as a system of Jewish transactions and interest loans. Such
loans, he argues, places the German employer in debt, forcing him to be harsh on his workers. In
this frame of mind Hess isn't blaming the Capitalist system – just that aspect of it he identifies as
fundamentally Jewish. Writing in imitation of Feder's academic style, Hess explains, “Als
Hauptschädling im Wirtschaftsleben betrachten wir das Leihkapital. Dieses ist in erster Linie in
Jüdischen Hãnden [Rothschild usw.]. Daher wird der Arbeiter in genialer Weise auf das
zwanzigmal kleinere wertschaffende Industriekapital abgelenkt.”[77]

2.4 Racial Hatred

Hess understood his opposition to Marxism much better through his comparative study of Karl
Marx and Ferdinand Lassalle, submitting his ideas as a university essay.[78] His views reveal his
interest for History, state and society and a determination to have a precise understanding of
‘national socialism’. He reveals an admiration for Lassalle[79] – who like Marx was Jewish –

72
curiously admiring in him the ideal of self-sacrifice and personal will for his nationalist cause of
socialism. Lassalle represents a unique figure who tried to give socialism a nationalist orientation
through unity between the people and the monarchy, without the need of having to have the support
of the bürgerlich classes nor of their values, which didn’t enter his political equation. He thus
preached socialist Revolution with the idea of the monarch becoming transformed into a peoples'
representative. Lassalle told Bismarck about his idea for the monarchy being “den natürlichen
Träger der sozialen Diktatur” and sought Bismarck's taciturn approval for his schemes.

Hess regards Lassalle’s ideas as a prototype model for National Socialism. Lassalle rejects
bürgerlich democracy, arguing idealistically for “ein soziales und revolutionäres
Volkskönigstum.”[80] Bismarck would pander to the young man's hopes, identifying in Lassalle's
spirit of youth the idealism he might have had himself in younger days. It is because of this liaison
the Iron Chancellor has with Lassalle that Hess chastises Bismarck for having fallen victim to the
wiles of a sophisticated Jew. Lassalle thought, however, no less practically than Marx, who comes
under a bitter attack from Hess, who, although admiring the revolutionary potential Marx proscribes
for the working-class [“Die Arbeiterklasse ist revolutionär oder sie ist nichts”][81], condemns him
for his internationalism. His final verdict on Lassalle is that he represents in his view “der schlaue
Jude.”[82]

When Hess wasn't trying to convince his parents and family relatives of the dangers of “Jewish
Bolshevism,” he was remonstrating against them about the perils of home spun German-Jewish
capitalism. In a letter to his uncle Walter, he tries to make an impression by portraying Jews as a
capitalist class “enslaving” the German masses. He sees the economic and social relations between
Jews and Germans as an excuse for racial-ideological civil war. The more power the Jews have the
greater their international connections and hold over the world – so he ranted. This was a view he
impressed upon Hitler when handing him in Landsberg prison in 1924, Die Protokollen der Weisen
von Zion,[83] an anti-Semitic forgery appearing out of Czarist Russia that propagated the idea of a
“Jewish World Conspiracy.” Hess' radical rhetoric found no family listeners. His uncle politely
declined his views, replying with a cultural prejudice of his own: “Eine solche Macht wie das
Judentum kann man bekampfen mit geringeren Mitteln, dann aber mit mehr Erfolg, weil 'sie' noch
andere Interessen haben. Will man aber sie ganz unschädlich machen von vornherein, dann sieht
der Jude seinen Ruin und wendet alle Mittel zur Bekampfung jener an, die ihn zu vernichten drohen
und die Absicht dazu bekunden.”[84]

Hess' anti-Semitism experimented with intellectual and emotional manipulation in his letters to
Milly Kleinmann. He abused his correspondence with her, using her as a model recipient for the
potentiality of his ideas. It is curious how Hess experimented on family members, such as his
cousin and his uncle, probing their minds and responses to see how exactly he should emotionally
charge his arguments and to see what kind of intellectual justification he could give. Hitler learned
his style of propaganda, often inchoate and revolving around the brash repetition of certain phrases
through spontaneous engagement with first demobilized soldiers and then the beer drinking crowds
of the brewery halls on the Munich political circuit. It was no wonder his style of propaganda was
rough and underdeveloped, better used as spoken oratory rather than written material. Hess in
contrast specialized in writing, producing propaganda summaries to give the party firm ideological
direction. Furthermore, as Hitler indulged in a rather verbose, irrational and at times sadistic
expression of anti-Semitism, Hess preferred to use his knowledge, research and intellect to develop
an elitist cultural anti-Semitism. He believed the sophistication of his arguments would win
bürgerlich and working-class loyalty.

73
The initial step towards intellectualizing his anti-Semitism for the electorate was to continue with
his experimentation in the art of emotional manipulation in his letters to his cousin. He attempts to
win her over to his views through intellectually high-sounding catch-phrases and by appealing to
her emotions through a description of the working misery and impoverishment of the German
people, especially the elderly whom he sees particularly vulnerable in a crisis of inflation and food
shortages. He knows Milly's heart serves her moral conscience and that she identifies with the
plight he pictures for her with his tantalizing words, which carry an anti-capitalist message directed
not against the upper-classes as a social entity but against their conduct. He sees it as unfair that the
wealthy [“die Wohlhabenden”] should preserve their privileges and wants them to break their
social-class loyalty through recognition of their moral conscience, which knows better and would, if
it had the courage of its convictions assist the needy. Hess writes:

“(...) Und gerade viele der Wohlhabenden würden vielleicht glücklicher sein, denn im tiefsten Inneren regt
sich doch etwas wie schlechtes Gewissen, wenn sie an alten Leuten vorbeigehen, die ihr Leben lang redlich
arbeiteten, zum Teil mit für die Allgemeinschaft, und die nun betteln müssen, um nicht zu verhungern und
für Nährungsmittel und Gegenstände des täglichen Bedarfs betrachtlich über dem Wert zahlen müssen, weil
hohe indirekte Steuern darauf liegen, damit die Zinsen für die Papiere der Wohlhabenden aufgebracht
werden. (...)” [85]

Hess describes beggars, suggestive of the picture of uncared for demobilized, unemployed soldiers,
to affect the moral conscience of those who have retained their wealth. His imagery reflects
perhaps his fear for his own circumstances after having returned from the front without a secure
job. He purports to be understanding of German society in the throes of chaos and despair. His
manipulative streak has, however, something after all in common with Hitler in that it reflects a war
mentality, dividing society into 'victors' and 'vanquished', privileged and unemployed, educated and
uneducated. As the society seems to be so fractured and beyond nationalist unity, Hess advocates
as a temporary solution in an article [Wie begegnen wir der drohenden Gefahr?] the cause of
‘Particularism’. He writes northern Germany off as lost to Marxist influence, seeing the masses too
infiltrated and confused by KPD, SPD and USPD propaganda. He reiterates, “Die einzige Rettung
kann Bayern bedeuten.” Bavaria represents for him a haven for a genuine 'nationalist socialism’.
His willingness to break with the Reich and campaign for a separate Bavaria reveals the
underdeveloped nature of Hess' politics, as he sought quick-fix solutions detrimental to his long-
term vision of nationalist unity and regeneration. Hitler rejected ‘Particularism’ and never
advocated, not even temporarily, the break-up of the German state.

Hess reveals through his thoughts on ‘Bavarian Particularism’ his sense of frustration in not being
able to transform the NSDAP into a genuine vehicle of nationalist unity. He envisaged a kind of
bitter German civil war between north and south, seeing the north as having to be liberated by a
free, nationalist Bavaria. He accuses the German intelligentsia in the north as having been
subverted by Marxism. Turning to Die Protokollen der Weisen von Zion[86] as a source, he writes
pessimistically of northern Germany: “Die Intelligenz des Landes ist zuerst zu vernichten. In
Rußland wurde danach gehandelt.”[87] His fear-mongering implies Germany is decaying in the
same way as Russia as a victim of Marxism and “Jewish-Bolshevism.” Emphasizing his faith in the
strong nationalist character of Bavaria he concludes, “Bayern würde durch den Besitz der
Kraftquelle, unabhängig von der Kohle, das Gehen eigener Wege im Falle der Bolshewisierung des
Nordens erleichtert werden.”[88]

Hess' mood alternates between pessimism and optimism. Although he sees a kind of nationalist
organization of the economy developing in Bavaria he writes off the nation's general predicament as
he cannot see the Reich government being able to endure sustained economic crisis. He predicts to
Milly: “Wenn man einsieht, dass der Zusammenbruch der Geldwirtschaft eines Tages mit

74
mathematischer Sicherheit kommen muss, darf man nicht einfach die Hände in den Schoss legen
und den Karren laufen lassen. Außergewöhnliche Zeiten verlangen außergewöhnliche Taten.”[89]
His remarks reflect no genuine prognosis; they are emotionally targeted to respond to the
frustrations of the moment. There is, for instance, neither a great prediction of the future Wall
Street Crash nor of the ensuing economic depression after October, 1929. Hess didn't figure on
such events. His understanding of economics remained limited. When his mother had tried to
enlighten his mind suggesting John Maynard Keynes' The Economic Consequences of the Peace, he
declined her offer.[90]

* * *

In August, 1920, Hess fell in love. The girl in question was a twenty year old daughter from a
wealthy family in Hanover, Ilse Proehl. Her educated, privileged background enabled her to share
Hess' cultural and social-class affinities, including his cultural anti-Semitism. Such an attribute
needn't be surprising in such a young girl, revealing how anti-Semitism wasn't just the sole preserve
of 'racially aware' nationalists. The young and educated were subject to its allures. Ilse was a
young woman with political ambitions, encouraged by the act of political emancipation for women
at the end of the First World War. She became attracted to Hess' Romanticism, laced at times with
his poetry. One of his poems reflects his obsession for racial dominance and his missionary zeal.
He encourages her to think they can both master situations few might manage or dare contemplate
as he writes of physical and spiritual union with her with “clenched teeth”:

“So müssen wir denn meistern,

was wenige vermögen und sei's nur äußerlich

mit zugepreßten Zähnen.”[91]

Ilse responds with the hope of becoming his political partner. Their love expressed itself around a
shared anti-Semitism, which encouraged Hess in his racial obsessions. It was when he had initially
found her responses to his political entreaties as receptive, during a chance encounter on the landing
of the pension house Schildberg, that he had first courted her with an invitation to a NSDAP
meeting entitled, Warum sind wir Antisemiten.[92]

Ilse Proehl tries to help Hess develop his anti-Semitism, as a letter of hers in September, 1921,
illustrates. She describes a human-interest story, focusing on a particular German family, which she
argues has been made victim of Jewish 'incompetence' and state untrustworthiness. She draws a
comparison between the 'unreliability' of the Jews and that of the Reich government as she
describes how a German woman with eight children had been incorrectly diagnosed and had a
failed operation carried out by a Jewish doctor. How true the story was cannot be verified and may
belong to Ilse's imagination. Nevertheless, she writes of Jewish 'injustice' and claims the eight
children and their mother were left unsupported by the state. Presumably the father had perished
during the war. In Ilse's view this all smacked of a Jewish conspiracy with the connivance of the
social-democratic government in Berlin. She concludes her story, declaring: “Da der Arzt ein Jude
bei der Entlassung einen Fehler machte, bekommt die Frau keinen Pfennig vorerst vom Staat.”[93]

75
Hess mirrors her anti-Semitic concerns. As her reward for confiding the above story in him he
writes to her about Hitler, describing how he is increasing his political profile through his attacks on
the Jews. Praising Hitler and his polemical condemnation of the 'Jewish Press' in Berlin, Hess asks
her, “Was sagen Sie denn zur Berliner Attacke gegen die Antisemiten?”[94] He implies it is
becoming virtually impossible to express criticism against Jews because of the protection they have
from the state (“Staatsgewalt”) and from the 'Jewish controlled' bürgerlich press.[95] He thinks it is
lamentable that anti-Semites have their views restricted and reported upon with great prejudice.[96]
He expresses his sense of outrage, but as hitherto pointed out, reveals, too, a marked tendency
towards pessimism when the challenges seem so great, writing, “Das Ganze bedeutet nur, dass sich
das Judentum in Berlin für stark genug hält, in aller Öffentlichkeit die Macht in die Hände zu
nehmen.” He seeks solace in the hope of resurrecting his call for Bavarian Particularism,
exclaiming: “Bin neugierig, ob Bayern sich das bieten läßt. Lieber den Bruch mit dem Reich und
hier die Befreiung organisieren, als allen Widerstand aufgeben und mit in den dort oben
heraufgezüchteten Bolschewismus hineinrutschen.”[97]

Sharing their politics together was a feature of the Hess couple's relationship. In contrast Albert
Speer and his wife attempted to keep the private realm clear of politics, but felt pressurized into
bringing their personal lives closer to Hitler's. Speer writes: “Far more than I suspected, the 'time of
decision' was already past for me. I felt, in Martin Buber's phrase, 'anchored in responsibility in a
party’.”[98] Speer sometimes felt pursued by Hitler whenever he wanted a weekend break or a
holiday with his children. Having once explained to Hitler his idyll of leading a happy, professional
and family life in Berlin, Hitler retorted, “Why, you can have all that and more near me.”[99] The
luckless Speer would then be contacted and told to return to Hitler's private residence on the
Obersalzburg. Speer felt an uncomfortable officialdom bearing down upon him. He complains of
being compelled to visit Hitler whenever he didn't want to. He didn't like his residence from an
architectural point of view, so he claimed.[100]

One should bear in mind Speer was in reality a Hitler admirer despite his written grievances, which
he expressed post-war to add to the free-thinking reputation he had first forged for himself at the
Nuremberg Trial in 1945/46. He claims he wanted his political connections to Hitler separate from
home life, but complains that this was impossible.[101] One becomes wary when trying to be
sympathetic towards Speer because, as he admits, he had at twenty-eight years of age deliberately
drawn near to Hitler, believing he would – as he did – receive commissions to build monuments and
parade areas for the Third Reich. His quest for fame brought personal implications he never fully
appreciated at the time. In terms of being away too often from his children he felt hurt. Speer hurls
upon the unsuspecting reader the full force of his plea for independent freedom.[102]

Hess and Ilse responded more positively in their relations to Hitler. Hess was also a Hitler admirer
but a more effective promoter of his cause. In drawing himself close to him, Hess aimed to bring
his partner more within the political fold, though on specific conditions. Ilse wasn't permitted to
join Hess at party meetings and neither was she required to do any political work. This left her
frustrated. Her political involvement was limited to replying to Hess' political letters addressed
personally to her. He sought out her opinions and encouraged her in a private capacity, but no
more. The Hess couple's relationship thus became strained, although it was able to earn its only real
period of unity and dominance when both prevailed over Hitler's inner circle between the years
1926 and 1931.

The difference between the Hess and the Speer couples overshadows their similarities. Both were
representatives of the Bildungsbürgertum, sharing romanticized illusions and believing Germany to
be on the brink of a new political dawn. Both felt this because they had become disenchanted under

76
the weight of post-1918 cultural pessimism. They each strove to break the habits of modernity,
rebelling against city life and embracing nature. Both couples enjoyed countryside walks and
outdoor pursuits. In these terms, as revealed in Hess' poetry, they expressed a new Romanticism
based on a racial perception of new man and woman. Hess and Speer felt attracted to Hitler on
account of his efforts to break free from cultural pessimism, especially through the cult of his
apparent superhuman personality. Hitler would write with a convoluted sense of social-Darwinism
in his views on racial decline and, writing with an eye on Germany's potential rise or precipitous
fall, the NSDAP leader states: “Menschliche Kultur und Zivilisation sind auf diesem Erdkreis
unzertrennlich gebunden an das Vorhandensein des Ariers. Sein aussterben oder Untergehen wird
auf diesem Erdball wieder die dunklen Schleier einer kulturlosen Zeit senken.”[103]

2.5 Hess and Hitler

The main difference between Hess and Hitler was their attitude towards propaganda. Hess
represents the idealist who recognizes integrity in the masses. Hitler in contrast shows contempt for
them, expressing disdain for their alleged political docility which he argues can be manipulated
through a simple language. Hitler's cynicism reflects Machiavelli. The Eighteenth Century Italian
in his The Prince reveals how political rulers usurp others using ulterior motives. Hitler's views
reflect Friedrich Nietzsche, too, whose quest for the 'superman' is reinforced through his 'self will'
and his political perceptions of himself.

Hitler protects his guarded aura with neither references nor quotations in his book, Mein Kampf. He
appears to rate himself beyond ordinary authorship and other intellectuals through cultivating a
mystique around himself as if he alone were in possession of profound knowledge. In his chapter
on propaganda, however, he releases himself from any guarded secret he may have and expresses
perhaps the 'best' part of his book, proving himself as inventive and as original as possible
displaying a genuine propaganda gift. An illustration of this is the following extract:

“(...) Die breite Masse eines Volkes vor allem unterliegt immer nur der Gewalt der Rede. Alle großen
Bewegungen, sind Vulkanausbrüche menschlicher Leidenschaften und seelischer Empfindungen, aufgerührt
entweder durch die grausame Gottin der Not oder durch die Brandfackel des unter die Masse geschleuderten
Wortes, und sind nicht limonadige Ergüsse asthetisierender Literaten und Salonhelden. Völkerschicksale
vermag nur ein Sturm von heisser Leidenschaft erwecken aber kann nur, wer sie selbst im Innern trägt. Sie
allein schenkt dann dem von ihr Erwählten die Worte, die Hammerschlägen ähnlich die Tore zum Herzen
eines Volkes zu öffnen vermögen. Wem aber Leidenschaft versagt und der Mund verschlossen bleibt, den
hat der Himmel nicht zum Verkünder seines Willens ausersehen (...)” [104]

Hitler uses the “language of violence” (“der Gewalt der Rede”) to put his message forcibly across.
This represents an intimidation of the reader, who is given no room for thought but must 'accept' his
views unquestioningly. Such an auto-didactic reflected the commanding presence of his oratory
before the masses. Hess adopted an alternative approach catering to cultural sensitivities through
use of a sophisticated language. Hess wishes in contrast to Hitler to prove he has intellectual
qualities and aims to be detailed and focused, while Hitler appears to shroud himself behind
generalizations and the abstract. Hitler's writing approach reflects the semi-educated. His
metaphors are often mixed and reflect rigidity. He borrows phrases from volkish-nationalism and
fails with his poor literary metaphors such as the description of rising nationalist passion as
explosive volcanoes. Such writing, although forceful and intense, has the hallmarks of kitsch and
cannot be taken seriously by the critical reader. He argues the German people must fulfill its
destiny (“Völkerschicksale”) until “the terrifying goddess of poverty” (“die grausame Gottin der
Not”) shall judge over all with her political will. This is reflective once again of his tendency to let
his prose style imitate his oratory, as his predilection towards a goddess of History watching over

77
him and Germany was something he had clearly intimated during his closing remarks at his Munich
trial.

Hess presents the idea of himself as the sophisticated propagandistic. He partly imitates Feder's
academic style, borrowing volkish-nationalist phrases such as “im Volk” and “zum Nationalen
zurückführen” and “Drucksachen-Material.” Their use would appear meaningless in an abandoned
context of uncollected thoughts, but Hess' writing talent is to remain focused and forceful through
linking ordinarily uninspiring stock phrases into his codified thought and structured arguments.
This gives him an edge over his political rivals such as Alfred Rosenberg, Der Beauftragter für NS
Weltanschauung, whose overbearing intellectual style and twaddle about the attributes of 'the racial
soul' discredited him. Hess' contrast to the self-proclaimed ideologist of the movement, Rosenberg,
is typified through his bold declaration of 'above party' politics, implying the National Socialists
could never possibly be a conventional party because he saw them idealistically as a potential
movement married to the masses and against conventional bourgeois politics. This is the kind of
message he proclaims when he writes in a propagandistic review entitled Die Partei über den
Parteien. He idealistically praises the masses, seeing among them more and more who wish to
promote national unity and who in doing so turn their back on the existing parties. Hess writes:

“Immer größer wird die Zahl derer, von keiner Partei mehr etwas wissen wollen. Sie sind überzeugt, dass
nur Einigkeit uns retten kann. Dies bringt aber nur eine Bewegung zustande, welche die scheinbaren
Gegensätze – Nationalismus und Sozialismus – in sich vereinigt, in ursprünglicher Kraft, ohne schwächliche
Kompromisse einzugehen.”

Through these words it is clear that Hess places an abundant idealism and faith in Nationalism and
Socialism as the winning attributes of the NSDAP. This faith, and idealistic belief in the will of the
masses to turn away from conventional parties, is a view that strongly looms over all else in Hess'
thinking – there is, at the time of writing down these thoughts [in 1922] no mention of Hitler. Hess
is totally committed to the abstract ideal of Nationalism and Socialism being one desired by the
masses.[105]

Nevertheless, despite having an idealistic notion about the masses and their apparent drive towards
an 'above party' solution to German politics, Hess still dabbled with the idea of sidling up to the
nation's elite and most prominent figures in an attempt to have them bound in duty and obligation to
the masses. For this reason he courts General Ludendorff, former joint chief of the imperial staff.
Writing of his joy, after receiving a reply from the general, Hess tells his parents: “Ich hatte die
unbeschreibliche Freude, dass er mir noch am gleichen Tag mit einem sehr netten und sehr
interessanten längeren Schreiben geantwortet hat.“ However, the potentiality of an effective Hess-
Ludendorff partnership disconcerted Hitler, who didn't want the general too involved in his affairs.
He misunderstood Hess' motive of using the general as a vehicle for the party. Hess at this stage in
his political career was twenty-six years of age and rather näive when it came to dealing with an
experienced hand such as Ludendorff, who had a political agenda of his own and was looking for a
nationalist party he felt he could dominate with his legendary name.”[106]

Hess underestimated the extent of Ludendorff's ulterior motives believing that he had found a
willing enthusiast for the party. The general was actually biding his time, gathering experience of
the volkish-nationalist scene and also had other commitments such as the writing down of his war
memoirs, which represented his justification for his running of the war. Ludendorff refused to join
the NSDAP which was a disappointment for Hess, but not for Hitler who recognized immediately
the Machiavellian craftiness of the skilled political opportunist in Ludendorff's character. Hitler
was relieved he didn't have to endure the general as an equal partner, while Hess' hopes of using the
general as a means of bringing in more electoral support for the party, were dashed. He persisted,

78
nevertheless, with the illusion that Ludendorff was stepping closer to his ideals, telling his parents
at one point excitedly, “Er bat, dass ich ihn gelegentlich über die Bewegung unterrichte.”[107]

Idealists often leave pragmatic considerations untended. Hitler was five years older than Hess and
was the more experienced politician, consciously aware of what was required in pursuit of personal
power. He was contradictory, deliberately so, in his relations to Ludendorff. He praised the
general's legend, but not too much because Hitler had his own authorized view of the lost war,
which he was to put down in writing in Mein Kampf. He expressed a distinctive anti-Wilhelmine
flavor, criticizing the ruling elite for having failed to excel at propaganda as the Entente had. One
of the reasons, Hitler argued that the Entente was so successful in presenting to the world,
especially to American public opinion, the idea of Germanic atrocities in Belgium against nuns and
babies, was because it was more adroitly crafted, even though the themes were kitsch. German
propaganda, he argued, had been too insular and defensive and this, he thought, had brought about
the German military collapse on the Western Front in the summer of 1918. He argued more
vigorously in future for a more aggressive, racial propaganda to keep the nation focused and bound
together. He rejected Ludendorff's running of the war, arguing the general had neglected the needs
of the home front and had embarked upon the wrong strategy on the Western Front. Hitler's
criticism pushed Ludendorff away from the party, while Hess attempted to draw him near. Hess'
motive was to use the general for an increase in electoral support; Hitler's motive was to keep the
general away from his personal dominance of the party. How Hess and Hitler differed over their
views on Ludendorff in these early years characterized the sharp contrast between their opposing
minds and strategies.

After Ludendorff's interest in the party waned and Hess felt a sense of 'betrayal' he slipped into a
temporary moody pessimism. He began to show caution in his political thoughts and ensconced
himself more in a passive existence of study, preparing his intellect for the future causes he
envisaged fighting. He retreated behind the personal maxim that no party progress could be
possible without first the acquiring of knowledge and research into two integrated aims: the
broadening out of the party to reflect society in all its facets and through the dissemination of
material to intellectually arrive at a solution to 'Die Judenfrage'. He also learned from his
disappointing experience at the hands of Ludendorff, recognizing that others had political agendas
too. He turned with shades of his pessimism to the idea of Fate as a deciding factor in the ups and
downs of his political career, writing of the “Tücke des Schicksals” (“Fate”) to question his own
lack of political activism.

As his political character matured he began to patiently advance his own claims. In a handwritten
party notice he asks party members to be patient as he himself was in response to the party's
disappointments and argues it should expect to endure more future disappointments
(“Enttäuschungen”), although he does suggest these will become fewer once the hard work brings
“mehr freudige Überraschungen.” His conclusion that hard work brought dividends reflected the
capitalist work ethic of his patriarchal father. Through an appeal to self belief and to a quasi-
religious identification with the human spirit, he addressed the common party worker as follows:
“Wo du kannst, antworte mit Keulenhieben und glaube an Deinen Endsieg wie an den Deines
Volkes.”[108]

Hess' being unable to bind Ludendorff to the NSDAP caused him to turn to other creative
propagandistic writing , drafting, for instance, an article on the romanticist theme of a legendary
leader in his award winning essay, Wie wird der Mann beschaffen sein, der Deutschland wieder zur
Hohe führt?[109] Joachim Fest and Bruno Hipler[110] see this essay as evidence of Hess' early
promotion of the Fuhrer cult, but one may argue it couldn't possibly have been this, especially when

79
one recognizes Hess' political agenda working for racial utopia, socialism and anti-Semitism. He
emerges first and foremost as a anti-Semite rather than as an icon maker of Hitler. He turns away
from Hitler in preference of his value system for communal and racial development. He wants
Hitler to serve the nation and not the other way round.[111]

2.6 Hitler’s Putsch – 9th November, 1923

It was the reaction to events in Munich during April/May 1919 that drove the city's intelligentsia
and reactionary elite into embracing far-Right volkish-nationalist groups and parties as well as
welcoming the arrival into the city of the armed paramilitary Feikorps. Bavaria thus became a
center of extreme political activism. The Bavarian Minister-President, Kurt Eisner, an Assimilated,
educated Jew brought up in Berlin and who was not the secretive radical 'misfit' who stole across
the German border from Galicia, as portrayed in far-Right propaganda, turned his philosophical,
humanist outlook towards President Wilson and the 14 Points and engaged with the SDP and
willing bürgerlich voters committed to the republic. As the political developments in Bavaria,
however, were to mirror the USPD-SPD split in Berlin, Eisner found himself isolated and felt
compelled to hand in his resignation. On the way to the Landtag on 21st February, 1919 he was
shot dead by the Freikorps radical, the twenty-one year old demobilized army officer, Graf Anton
Arco-Valley. The murder shocked bürgerlich opinion as society became polarized between
extremist camps and street fighting broke out between the Freikorps and the Revolutionary Left.
Hess, who was still formerly attached to his as yet non-disbanded Fliegerkorps in Lechfield offered
to fly in his aircraft over the city to swoop down upon worker demonstrations and drop propaganda
leaflets. He seems to have galvanized himself into an energetic patriot, a side of his character
different from his usual passive demeanor. This awakening of activism within him also caused him
to express extreme views, greeting, for instance, the news of Eisner's assassination with “Graf Arco
hat seine Mission erfüllt.”[112]

Hess' hatred of Jewish intellectual Marxism grew in response to the racial stereotype he had in his
mind of Jews as cunning, devious and against the patriotic interest. The Jew came to symbolize for
him an agent provocteur inciting revolution and chaos, pulled by the purse strings of hidden
capitalist plutocrats as well as instructed by the directives of the Soviet leadership in Moscow. His
intuitive grasp of the ideological aspects of anti-Semitism in its Capitalist and Marxist perspective –
two seemingly diametrically opposed concepts – was able to unify his anti-Semitic thought into a
totality, arguing that 'Jewish-Capitalism' and 'Jewish-Bolshevism' were of the same variant of the
Jewish 'World Conspiracy'. He may not have conceptualized his thinking so roundly – his intuitive
grasp became gradually packaged through the anti-Semitism of the Thule Gesellschaft – but he felt
adamant who was the ideological enemy threatening Germany: the Jew. His anti-Jewish hysteria
sometimes ran aground in frustration as he felt unable to explain the command and respect a
character such as the industrialist, Walther Rathenau, was able to have over capitalists and the
working-class. As Foreign Minister in 1922, Rathenau aimed to achieve traditional conservative
goals through reaching an understanding with Soviet Russia – condemned as the pariah state by the
rest of the world's capitalist nations – in an attempt to evade the diplomatic and military restrictions
of the Versailles system. His was an astute mind, thinking of Germany's new place of integration
and diplomacy abroad and at the same time cajoling the working-class into an arrangement with his
patriarchal brand of capitalism and welfare. His murder, like that of Mathias Erzberger's the
previous September, was in 1922 a catastrophe for Germany, which Hess overlooked with a smile.
He applauded the murder as much as he had greeted Eisner's death.

Hess' brutal acceptance of death as a political reality, to be encouraged through murder and
assassination is a darker side of his character unaccepted by his son, Wolf-Rudiger,[113] and his

80
widow, Ilse. [114] Hess, the family man who represented burgerlich values as a ‘responsible
thinking patriot’, was an image portrayed by Dr. Seidl in 1945/46; a view belonging to the post-
1945 Hess-Myth. [115] His acceptance of political violence and murder was shaped by his
Freikorps experience, which affected his emotions tumultuously, placing within him the spirit of
discord and merciless retribution. He shares this characteristic with Heinrich Himmler and Martin
Bormann, who both became radicalized by the bloody experiences they witnessed in Munich at the
time of the crushing of the Raterrepublik. The far-Right myths behind the Raterrepublik and its
portrayal as an example of 'World Jewish Conspiracy' to take over Germany in the name of Soviet
proletarian dictatorship hides the fact that many on the Revolutionary Left such as Toller, Landau
and Levine were, despite their revolutionary Marxism, humanist representatives of the symbiotic
German/German-Jewish intelligentsia. In contrast the Freikorps, whose death squads murdered
Levine, advocated political violence as a romanticized ideal and as a continuation of the war
through other means against the 'internal enemy'. This was not unique as an aspect of counter-
revolution. The idea of continued warfare and the hostility of former trench soldiers unable to adapt
to an integrated civilian life and entranced by political radicalism was a feature of British
mercenaries recruited to fight as ‘Black and Tans’ in their merciless repression of the Catholic
community in Ireland in 1920/21. [116]

Hess' embracing of political violence as a romanticized ideal prepared him for his break with his
studious, passive nature and his intellectual refinement in favor of Hitler's “Putsch Politics.” This
explains his sudden turn around away from his intellectual development as an educated anti-Semite
to one embracing the irrational anti-Semitism of the street. His anti-Semitic views and tolerance of
political violence reflected the altered perceptions of Munich’s Bildungsbürgertum, which under the
short-lived regime of the Raterrepublik had felt its future threatened. The Burkhardts, Lehmanns,
Hanfstaegels, Bechsteins and other literati people who supported Hitler had encouraged the NSDAP
leader in his revolutionary perception of himself. This was extenuated by the myths circulating the
rise and coming to power of Benito Mussolini in autumn 1922. Events in Italy had their impact on
cultured, educated Germans, who saw how the Italian monarchy entered into a working partnership
with the Fascist movement and saw in this a national regeneration of the country. Mussolini, his
followers and the Catholic Church proclaimed a rebirth of the Risorgimento. It was as if what
occurred in Italy represented a revolution of Enlightenment embracing a new invigorating
perception of human relations. The qualities of man as strong and intellectual, hard and firm were
qualities Mussolini reflected in himself as well as in his movement. Political strength was quickly
used as a device for political suppression and torture, as the Marxist Antonnio Gramsci, who had
written on the false political consciousness regarding the bürgerlich milieu, was to find out as
Mussolini's favored prisoner.

The historian, Ian Kershaw, analyses the development of the Nazi 'Fuhrer Myth' by looking at two
models of expression that helped shape it. Firstly he acknowledges the role of the Kaiser's
leadership and how during the Kaiserreich the mythical icon status of Otto von Bismarck was used
as a device by the Hohenzollern dynasty as a means of uplifting cherished, idealized notions of
Germanic volkish-nationalism. Bismarck was seen in death – conveniently by Kaiser Wilhelm II
who had opposed his constitutional interference – as a model of 'self will', 'self-sacrifice' and
devotion to the national community. Hess had been raised with this selfless ideal during his
Wilhelmine education and it would contribute to his later idealistic projections for the NS-
Volksgemeinschaft. His unique admiration for Ferdinand Lassalle's promotion of the 'Peoples'
Monarch' in a vision of socialist dictatorship was a theme Hess came to write about while a student
at university watching events in Italy with interest. The proclamation of partnership between
monarchy and people by Mussolini appeared a fulfillment of the Lassalle vision, although no one
on the far-Right would have willingly admitted this on account of Lassalle having been a Jew.

81
Kershaw's second model of identification after the legacy of icon-building around Bismarck's name
was the experience of “The March of the Black Shirts” on Rome in October 1922. This gave Hitler
the incentive to invigorate his Putsch Politics and style himself in the revolutionary mold of
Mussolini to enhance his Bismarckian iron willed conceptions of himself as a man of destiny. The
man of destiny attribute was one Hess had encouraged, but not as Kershaw, Fest, Horn, Masner and
other historians have suggested as an illustration of the 'Fuhrer-cult'.

* * *
“Der Mann, der Deutschland wieder aufwärts führt, ist zwar auch ein Diktator, aber in heiliger
Vaterlandsliebe hält er über allem eigenen Ehrgeiz seines Landes Wohl und zukünftige Größe als einziges
Ziel im Auge.” [117]

The above quotation from an essay written by Rudolf Hess in 1922, extracts of which are printed in
the Deutsche Fuhrerlexicon for 1934/35 under the biographical entry of Hess' name, refers to how
Hess apparently saw Hitler in 1922 as the future Messianic Fuhrer of Germany. The intention of
the lexicon is to demonstrate Hess' closeness to Hitler as the 'Second Man' of the Reich. Hess is
presented as Hitler's intellectual partner from the days of Munich Society before the Putsch and as a
collaborator of ideas in Landsberg prison thereafter. This view is illustrative of the myth-making of
the Third Reich in projection of its leaders. Historians have been lulled by the peculiar legacy of
Nazi propaganda of Hitler as the iron man and Hess as a dedicated follower of his personality cult.
The propaganda of the time couldn't unveil Hess' private agenda and the road of his own intellectual
development as this would have been contrary to the opinion of Hitler as the 'First Man' and the
'First Servant' of the Reich. Hess very cleverly in his speeches would emphasize this second
attribute.

In terms of his own road of development Hess falls between the attributes of a violent and vigorous
activism and an introspective, passive intellectualism. His development of thought had its own
dialectic and may be divided up into certain phases. His Freikorps experience in 1919 shaped his
emotionally charged anti-Semitism, his participation in the Thule Gesellschaft from 1918 shaped
his intellectual anti-Semitism and his university education, 1919-1923 shaped his own autonomous
thinking, helping him to draw his own conclusions about the concept of ‘national socialism’ in
History and the underlying developments in racial anti-Semitism. The development wasn't exactly
smooth. He had to toil over his views and in-depth thinking. Hess' passivity, away from the
challenge of political activism, helped him to think problems out introspectively. The major
conundrum for him was trying to equate the place of the 'Great Man' in politics. [118] His hero had
been a military one, namely Ludendorff and we have seen how he tried to enlist the general into the
NSDAP as a potential working partner for Hitler. This in itself suggests that Hess wasn't as yet won
over by the Fuhrer cult espoused by Eckardt, Esser, Maurice and other sycophantic Hitler followers.

The idea of Hitler as the man of destiny was one also spun in the early 1920s by women. In
Munich Society Helena Bechstein, Frau Lehmann and Frau Burckhardt came to see in the lonely
and passionate Hitler the attributes of a potential leader with a vision, especially when he spoke
entranced at social gatherings in their homes about Wagner and the betrayal of the Versailles
settlement and of the republic. Hitler became courted and flattered by the literati set. He even
developed a friendship to his lawyer, Scheubner-Richter, who may count as Hitler's first friend of
the post-1918 period. Hitler was often a guest of his and his wife, indulged in bürgerlich tastes and
comforts and spoke volubly as he did at the Bechsteins, Lehmanns and Burckhardts about the
national humiliation of Versailles, the republic and Wagner. It is interesting how Hitler always
chose to speak about Wagner, elevating him as a cultural genius and mystic, but in actual fact

82
understanding little about his music. Hitler, as his only pre1914 friendship to August Kubizik
reveals, loved Wagner for the stage spectacle, [119] which obviously gave him ideas later about his
propaganda settings, which he was to work out together with Speer.

Hess didn’t belong to this literati inner circle of friends and acquaintances. It is a myth that he
introduced Hitler to this society. Hitler managed to make his own social connections on account of
making a name for himself as a volkish-nationalist speaker for the NSDAP. He was openly courted
as Munich Society entrenched itself more in its nationalist and anti-Semitic perceptions and fears of
Jewish intellectual Marxism. Scheubner-Richter saw him as a rising talent and had a unique ability
in securing funds from the influential and privileged for the NSDAP. He and the publisher, Julius
Friedrich Lehmann (1864-1935), embraced the Hitler ideal as a fashionable tailored made
nationalist figure, extolling his perceived virtues as a man of instinctive brilliance, education and
culture. The idea of the 'Fuhrer-Myth' was hatched in the salons of Munich Society, of which Hess
was only a fleeting observer. Looking back from the early 1930s Hess was to be quite envious of
the fact that Hitler had had a friend in Scheubner-Richter, his intellectual collaborator and adviser
on strategy, especially when it came to court cases involving Hitler in fracas with Marxist and
Revolutionary Left opponents.

Hess was in the period 1919-1923 a bona fide socialist and an intellectual with a distinct anti-
Semitic craving. His socialism and anti-Semitism were in a peculiar way influenced by his reading
of Lassalle, a Jew he acknowledged as someone with an intellectual aptitude capable of achieving
an egalitarian, nationalist society, but for the fact that he was a Jew. Hess increased his suspicions
not of intellectualism as Hitler did, but of Jewish intellectualism with its ability, in his view, to bend
and defile the truth. Hess saw himself striving for the truth of a political enlightenment he believed
could come victoriously only through the working-class. The working-class was his model ideal for
future progression; not the myth of the 'Great Man'. He distanced himself from legendary
Romanticism and saw himself as an educated agent of the working man, whose selflessness and
burdens he empathized with. Hess' ideal of the worker was as stereotypical as was the one he had
of Jews. He didn't have any relations to workers. He remained the trapped individual isolated in
his university studies. His decision to write an article about the potentiality of a romanticist leader
of repute was influenced by the aristocratic-reactionary nationalism of Karl Haushofer. Whereas
Hitler spent his time comforted in the burgerlich homes of his patrons, Hess sought refuge at
Haushofer's home, which he had started frequenting from the beginning of 1920. He enjoyed the
company, the warm meals and the engaging mind of Haushofer, who acted as his fatherly mentor.

* * *

Historians emphasize too much the Hess-Haushofer relationship of this period. They also impose
their view of Haushofer as an ideological giant with grandiose projections of Lebensraum. The
dialectic of Haushofer's development had its own course to follow. He was never immediately the
racial ideologist proclaiming Lebensraum; just as Hess was never immediately a promoter of the
Fuhrer cult. In the early twenties, at the time of their early relationship, Hess was the idealistic
socialist and Haushofer the reactionary Romanticist. If anything, Hess' essay on the potentiality of
the 'Great Man' was written as a riposte to Haushofer's brand of aristocratic thinking. Whereas
Haushofer wanted to see the authority of state invested in the legendary qualities of a nationalist
iconic figure able to transcend all social-class boundaries, Hess argued similarly but under the
influence of the socialist dictatorship ideal he had acquired from his university reading. The idea of
the Lassalle socialist monarch, a kind of prototype presidential figure, was contrasted by
Haushofer's alternative vision of an authoritarian Ersatzkaiser figure, an experienced hand of war
and diplomacy and someone who would be above party politics. Arguing their point of view from

83
different variables, Hess the socialist and Haushofer the reactionary both favored nationalist unity
with a strong figure at the apex of society, but in Hess' essay this figure would have to fulfill an
almost impossible criteria. He envisaged Messianic qualities as being beyond the ordinary man, so
that his essay represented not, as historians have argued, as a promotion of the Fuhrer cult model
but its very antithesis. What he implies through his message is that a 'Great Man', although
desirable, cannot be realized and that for this reason a greater intensity and commitment to socialist
politics as well as the development of the working-class as a vehicle of nationalist change becomes
necessary.'[120]

The other aspect to consider in terms of Hess' reactions and counter-weight 'World View' to
Haushofer's one are his internationalist perceptions of a 'Jewish Conspiracy' ranged against
Germany. Whereas Hess develops more intensely his socialism and commitment to the working-
class cause in response to his table talks with Haushofer, he learns to develop his anti-Semitism
through his letter writing, using these as models for his political writing and propaganda. In this
respect his partner, Ilse, assists in his anti-Semitism offering advice and stories she has heard
against Jews to incite Hess further. His relationship to her isn't as with his mother, Milly
Kleinmann and Gret Georg whereby he has to convince them of his views. Ilse is a willing
accomplice and has illusions of being his political partner, winning for herself a more esteemed
profile, which as a young woman attached to the Nazi movement was considerably difficult for her,
bearing in mind that Hess adopted the social-Darwinist male cause that the woman's role was as a
helper and bearer of children. The couple didn't as yet find agreement on raising a family on
account of Hess' political work and busy schedule, but Ilse's romanticist illusions were to remain
disappointed as she didn't find the political outlet as she had hoped. Only when she was able to play
host championing Hitler's inner circle in 'better days' from the mid-1920s onwards did she feel more
accomplished. Ilse's attachment to Hitler, like Hess' was one of admiration. Something the couple
shared after the point of Hess' ideological transformation and embracing of the Fuhrer cult as his
chosen model from the point of his release from Landsberg prison in December, 1924. As we shall
see it wasn't Munich Society, it wasn't Haushofer and it wasn't the Nazi intellectuals of the Thule
Gesellschaft that made Hess an advocate of the Fuhrer cult, but rather the point of his personal
transformation together with Hitler in Landsberg prison between May and December, 1924.

To be able to arrive at his point of transformation Hess had first to go through the motions of
indulging in “Putsch Politics,” which was a difficult decision for him to make. Throughout the
course of his university studies he was of the view that the NSDAP had to transform itself beyond
being an ordinary political party into a nationwide nationalist movement able to widen its electoral
appeal. That's why he had first entertained ideas of harnessing Ludendorff to the movement; not
because he was an elite figure with contacts to the former Wilhelmine elite, but because he regarded
him as a 'socialist general' with a common touch and admired his reforms during the war that had
helped to break the out of day narrow mindedness of the Prussian-German Officer corps, which
wasn't an admirer of Ludendorff. Hess admired Ludendorff in part out of a sense of Romanticism
and a belief in the tradition hero of myth and saga, but mainly because he saw him as a vehicle for
his socialism and the idea of building a nationalist community. When his admiration was broken
over the Putsch affair on 9th November, 1923, and he came to disregard the general as an egoist and
opportunist he transferred the idea he had of turning his expectations in a man with a common touch
with the people to Hitler. One problem remained. Prior to their imprisonment together Hitler, too,
still had to go through a process of ideological transformation. He still saw himself immaturely in
the role of a great Napoleonic revolutionary and was obsessed with achieving personal power rather
than ideals and allusions to the betterment of society. The difference between Hess and Hitler over
purpose and aims couldn't have been greater.

84
Hess differed from Hitler during the 1920s also in regard to his ability to be pragmatic and to
consider deals with ideological enemies. Curiously, although he had denigrated Walther Rathenau's
foreign policy and condemned him for being a Jew, he admired, as he had done with Ferdinand
Lassalle his pragmatism; [121] especially his decision to work with Soviet Russia as a means of
circumventing the Versailles settlement. Even more curiously, by adopting Rathenau's manifesto of
doing business with Russia he saw this as an excuse to attack 'Jewish-Capitalism', which he argued
wanted to obstruct this positive realignment of traditional German policy to the East. He argued
Jewish capitalists wanted to see Germany remain enslaved by the financial restrictions of the
Versailles Diktat. That being so, how was it that a man of Rathenau's caliber, an industrialist and
capitalist patriarch, had opened up negotiations with the Soviet regime at the Rapallo meeting in
Italy. Hess dismissed him as a 'contradictory Jew' and, worse, hated all Jewish capitalists for
serving supposedly their own self-centered interests. He attacked bitterly, too, their accomplices
among Jewish journalists in the bürgerlich press, writing: “Bezeichnend ist ja, dass im allgemeinen
unsere Judenpresse von einem politischen Zusammengehen mit Sowjet-Rußland nichts wissen will.
Dadurch konnte ja den Jude-Kapitalisten drüben bei der Entente das Geschäft verpatzt werden und
den Schiebern und Wucheren bei uns vielleicht auch. Jedenfalls ist der Weltkrieg wohl nur
scheinbar zu Ende. (...)”[122]

* * *

The internal war Hess had been waging inside himself prepared him intellectually for the “Battle for
Ideas” that was to occur around 1924/25. He was, however, neither psychologically nor
intellectually ready for 'a leap of faith' into political activism on 8th/9th November, 1923, when he
joined in the Hitler Putsch. Hitler decided on his Putsch not as Nazi myth-making would have us
believe in an heroic gesture, but under intense strain and pressure and suffering under stomach
cramps caused by his intense rivalry with Die Vaterländische Verbände, the volkish paramilitary
organizations under Lieutenant Kriebel and Dr. Weber. Under their verbal criticism Hitler decided
reluctantly to march to the Feldhernhalle. Joined by Ludendorff, the marchers proceeded over the
bridge that crossed the river Isar. On the eve of the march Hitler and Goering, leading SA
stormtroopers, arrested Bavarian state ministers and off-duty police officials together with Gustav
Ritter von Kahr, who had been preparing to give a lecture in a Munich theater. The assembly,
shocked by Hitler's antics and by Goering's threats, bravely cat-called the mobsters as
revolutionaries better suited to the political radicalism of Latin and Central America. Some even
cried out “Mexico!” Hitler clambered onto the stage, took out a pistol and fired a shot into the
ceiling, declaring, “Die nationale Revolution in Deutschland ist ausgebrochen !”[123]

The events of the evening of the 8th November also witnessed Hess taking part in a kidnapping of
certain ministers and police officials. “Polizeipräsident Mantel” and “Graf Soden” were among
those he arrested and took to a special location. Friedrich Bernreuther [1881-1958], who sat on the
Regierungsrat for police affairs, was kidnapped too. Regarding Hess' exact role in the Munich
Putsch Bernreuther later told the court during the Hitler Trial: “Im Zimmer waren ich, glaube ich,
eine Zeitlang vier, später sechs Leute mit Gewehren und Maschinen pistolen und als Führer
Leutnant Heß, dem dann auch Hauptmann Kolb eine Zeitlang offenbar beigegeben war.”[124]
Kolb, a former Freikorps officer, held rank over Hess and helped to belittle his role in the
kidnapping, which was to turn out unsuccessful. Bernreuther, explaining the course of events, adds:
“Dann wurden wir in Autos heruntergebracht. Ich kam mit Minister Wutzlhofer in ein Auto. Wir
fuhren dann weg; die Richtung war dann Rosenheimer Strasse auswärts, dann der Linie 12 nach,
dann, glaube ich, durch die Lindenstrasse in die Holzkirchener Strasse zur Villa Lehrmann.”[125]

85
Lehmann the anti-Semite and publisher, since 1917 editor of the ultra-nationalist magazine
Deutschlands Erneuerung, represented the Munich Society that followed Hitler sycophantically and
had lavished him with funds. He encouraged the idea of the Putsch and made his hillside villa
available for the kidnapped ministers. Bernreuther recalls, “Ich wurde zuerst in das Schlafzimmer
von Herrn Lehmann geführt, dann holte mich aber Lehmann herunter in sein Studierzimmer.”[126]
The treatment of the ministers was respectful and orderly; Bernreuther adding: “Am Abend wurde
von Lehmann noch eine Tasse Tee gegeben, am andern Früh gab es Frühstuck, dann
Mittagessen.”[127] Suddenly the mood altered as the kidnapped noticed an air of despondency
among their overseers. It was clear that Lehmann rose over the company with authority. Hess in
his account of the kidnapping affair tries to elevate himself as a leading figure, but the evidence
shows that it was Lehmann who commanded events until news of Hitler's failure in downtown
Munich caused him to release the ministers.

Realizing on the morning of 9th November that everything was over Lehmann informed the
kidnapped ministers that the Putsch was over. He had received sketchy information, but enough to
recognize that Hitler's bid for glory had ended. He told the assembled: “Die Reichswehr habe auf
einen Zug, der durch die Stadt gegangen sei, geschossen; Ludendorff wäre tot. Hitler habe einen
Kopfschuß bekommen, seinem Schwiegersohn Dr. Weber sei durch Maschinengewehrfeuer der
Kopf abgeschossen worden.”[128] The news, although not precise, gave the impression that Hitler
was dead. The reality was very different. It was Hitler's closest friend Scheubner-Richter who had
been mortally struck. Ludendorff had marched on gallantly up to the police cordon and contributed
further to his fearless reputation, while Hitler ran away; his shoulder dislocated as a result of
Scheubner-Richter's fall from his linking arm.

Hess, ignorant of what was going on in Munich on 9th November, stayed with Kolb. The two men
made their way down from Lehmann's hillside villa back towards Munich, fearing their arrest by
the police, which soon arrived at the villa and released the captives. In all this time Lehmann
remained courteous and even apologetic. Bernreuther concludes the story of the kidnapping,
explaining, “Dann kam Lehmann herauf und erklärte, er würde jetzt Schritte tun, dass wir
herausgelassen würden.”[129] Within a short while the criminal police had arrived and the
ministers were safe.

Hess' account differs from the one given by Bernreuther. He claimed he had driven up the hillside
with the kidnapped ministers. Just as he arrived at the villa the car, he told his parents in a
retrospective account shortly before his trial in April/May 1924, stalled. After he turned to his
captors, informing them they had more or less arrived, he went to check whether the villa was safe.
There is no mention of Lehmann having ever been present. Hess claims he left the vehicle with the
driver's keys stupidly still in the ignition. As he reached the villa he turned to see the vehicle
driving away. Hess was left alone on a cold night on a Bavarian hillside. This was his contribution
to the Munich Putsch; far from the heroic myth-making account given in the Deutsche
Führerlexikon.[130]

What had happened in the meantime? Hitler had been at the head of a ten abreast column with
linked arms to his friend, Scheubner-Richter. Ludendorff paraded nearby in his old army uniform
and his Pickelhaube on his head, looking the veritable figure of aristocratic reaction. The column
was approaching the Feldherrnhalle when a strong police cordon stopped it in its tracks. After an
uneasy stillness a Hitler supporter fired a shot. There was an instinctive exchange of gun fire, no
more than a few seconds long. Among those mortally struck were Ulrich Graf and Scheubner-
Richter. Ludendorff, having remained steadfast, decided to march on and voluntarily surrender to
the police. No one in the German Establishment had the courage to place Ludendorff on trial on

86
account of his great reputation. The Munich judiciary decided instead to hold one for Hitler. When
Hitler knew he had the sympathy of the Bavarian Justice Minister, Franz Gürtner,[131] later Nazi
Justice Minister 1933-1941, he was assured he would be given free range to state his case. In other
words he was assured a propaganda soap box by standing on trial. This would make his reputation
in the eyes of the wider bürgerlich interest following his name.

2.7 Hitler’s Trial

The transcript of the Hitler Trial [Der Hitler Prozeß] gives an indication of how Hitler thought.
Hitler became an overnight sensation. His views were reported and circulated by the bürgerlich
press, impressed by his oratory. Hitler's attack was against the state; not the nation. The nation he
respected while the sacrifice of those who had fallen he honored. He displayed his Iron Cross and
spoke as an educated son of the Bildungsbürgertum. This impression of a gifted, educated orator
contrasts with Hitler's uncouth image in the beer halls of Munich.[132]

As Hitler had promised he didn't criticize Ludendorff's reputation during his trial, although he did
criticize von Kahr. He gave the impression of having been tricked. He argued von Kahr and his
associates should have spoken up instead of having encouraged him to march. He stated that if they
had meant something else by the words “National Revolution” then they should have said so. That
was the line of his defense, suggesting the Putsch had had the support of Kahr and his ministers on
the eve of the Putsch. There was no mention in court of Hitler's bullying tactics in the Munich
theater when he had held von Kahr at gun point. Defending his honor and accusing his reluctant
conservative partner, he tells the court judge:

“Nun wird gesagt: Aber Exzellenz v. Kahr, v. Lossow and v. Seisser wollten den Vorgang am 8. November
abends nicht. Die Anklageschrift sagt, dass wir die Herren in eine Zwangslage hineingestoßen haben. In die
Zwangslage waren wir durch die Herren selbst geraten, sie haben uns in die Zwangslage hineingestoßsen.
Herr v. Kahr hatte ehrenhaft sagen müssen: Herr Hitler, wir meinen unter Staatstreich etwas anderes, wir
meinen unter 'Marsch auf Berlin' etwas anderes. Er hatte die Pflicht gehabt, uns zu sagen: Wir meinen mit
dem, was wir hier machen, etwas anderes als das, was Sie glauben. Er hat das nicht getan, die Folgen
kommen ausschließlich auf die drei Herren.” [133]

Hitler's nationalist icon is Richard Wagner, whose struggle against convention and quest for
recognition he imitates. He immaturely informs the court of the greatness of Wagner; a greatness
he estimates far above anything his accusers could imagine, especially after the composer was
buried without his official title engraved on his grave stone. Did Hitler suppose such an epitaph for
himself? He added that if the great composer had seen what folly nationalist politicians made of
themselves through coveting titles and honor he would laugh and rebuke them. Hitler lets his
audience think he values German virtues and yet at the same time makes them have a guilty
conscience for not having risen to the occasion of nationalist reawakening together with him. He
elevates himself as the nation's future iconic leader and proclaims how he intends to smash
intellectual Marxism, informing the court judges: “Was mir vor Augen stand, das war vom ersten
Tage an mehr, als Minister zu werden. Ich wollte der Zerbrecher des Marxismus werden. Ich
werde diese Aufgabe lösen, und wenn ich sie lose, dann wäre der Titel eines Ministers für mich eine
Lächerlichkeit.”[134]

Hitler speaks as if he has transcended political egoism and is capable of truly representing a
missionary zeal. In Hess' view the characteristics he had ascribed to a mythical leader, as written in
his essay in 1921, suddenly appear to be emerging in Hitler. He sees for the first time Nietzsche-
like superhuman qualities in him as Hitler grows in confidence and authority in lecturing the
Munich court. The Hitler myth of infallibility, of a man offering insight and judgment, begins with

87
Hitler's appearance at the Munich court. The judge and the press in the visitors' gallery become
transfixed as his admirers. Furthermore, Hitler characterizes himself as martyr for the nationalist
cause and emphasizes his soldier's background, which struck a chord with Hess and other admirers.
Hitler exaggerated his own legend and connected in his speaking the idea of selfless sacrifice in war
with the idea of German resurgence in the future, telling his listeners, “(...) Ich war vier Jahre lang
ausserhalb des Bodens, den ich als meine Heimat bezeichnen muss. Da habe ich mit glühender
Liebe die Stunden gezählt, die es mir gestatten wurden, von Frankreich zu ihm zurückzukehren.
Wenn es notwendig wäre, ginge ich auch heute hinaus, auch als Ausgewiesener. Sorgen Sie dafür,
dass sich die großte Schmach der deutschen Nation in Zukunft nicht wiederholt.”[135]

Both the political character of Rudolf Hess and Adolf Hitler changes during the period between the
Munich Putsch on 8th/9th November 1923 and the conclusion of the Hitler Trial in April 1924. Until
then Hess had believed that a “Nationalist Revolution” was only possible if the NSDAP movement
based its propaganda and effectiveness on the German working-classes. As idealistic as this stance
was it was mistaken because Hess underestimated the patriotic willingness of the German working-
class to accept the government's call for passive resistance in the Ruhr. This event had
ramifications for Hess' studies, which had to explain why the working-class lacked nationalist
revolutionary potential. Hitler based his idea of nationalist insurrection not on the working-classes
but on the strength of his paramilitary SA. His Putsch was therefore a paramilitary inspired
adventure. Once the Putsch had failed and Hitler had appeared in court the NSDAP leader was able
to reinvent himself as a son of Bildung and Kultur. He believed that this new projection of his
personality would help him win the hearts of the cultured public. That was important for him if he
were to emerge from the court as a champion of the nationalist cause. His prior bargaining with the
judge and the support of the Bavarian Justice Minister, Gürtner, helped him to achieve this
objective.

The impression Hitler gave himself as the loyal trench soldier and ordinary citizen who had risen to
nationalist prominence was one that was accepted not only by his supporters at the time, but also by
the revisionist historians of history like Dirk Bavenbamm, who exaggerate the self-sacrificing
martyrdom of Hitler as soldier and politician and encapsulates this vision into Hess' own legend as
well, so that Hess may be presented in a similar, honorable light as soldier and politician, with
Bavenbamm writing quite preposterously, “Wie Heß hat Hitler den ganzen Krieg in vorderster Linie
mitgemacht. Wie Heß wurde Hitler verwundet. Wie Heß hat es Hitler nie zu höheren
Offiziersweihen gebracht. Er [Hitler] ist schlicht und ergreifend derselbe namenlose,
fronterfahrene, feldgraue Kamerad, der den Krieg und die mit ihm verbundenen Opfer ebensowenig
vergessen kann wie Rudolf Heß.”[136] This legend of Hess having shared the same war experience
as Hitler's was supposed to have defined Hess' relationship to Hitler, but the truth is different in that
Hess' war history was unglamorous and frustrating, as we have already seen, and that Bavenbamm's
assumption that Hess was in the same instant of the same mold of Hitler's over-exaggerates the
connection between the two men.

Hitler's courtroom success nevertheless altered Hess' life. In many respects his actual political
career begins at this point as he emerges from his previous passive and studious character. He
switches from his position as a socialist theorist to one of revolutionary politics. Hess was as a
result of the Hitler-Trial to re-examine his cultural and social class origins and to return to the
Romanticism of his social-class in place of his socialism, which from now on took secondary
precedence. Hess appropriated the language of Romanticism and harbored certain romanticist
illusions identifying himself with a greater and deeper German past. Bavenbamm, the editor of his
private correspondence, appears excited in this respect and tries at certain opportunities to

88
emphasize the relationship between Hess and German Romanticism. He quotes, for instance, the
following verse:

“Nichtsnutzig eine Freiheit, die vergißt,

was sie der Reichsehre schuldig ist!

Nichtsnutzig eine deutsche Libertät,

die prahlerisch im Feindeslager steht!

Geduld! Es kommt der Tag, der wird gespannt

ein einig Zelt ob allem deutschen Land!

Geduld! Wir stehen einst um ein Panier!

Und wer uns scheiden will, den morden wir!

Geduld! Ich kenne meines Volkes Mark!

Was langsam wächst, wird doppelt stark.

Geduld! Was langsam reift, das altert spät!

Wenn andre welken, werden wir ein Staat.” [137]

The poem was sent to Hess by his friend and father figure, Karl Haushofer, who wanted to bring
Hess away from extreme Putsch-like politics and teach him the values of being politically patient
and of building for the future, although harboring as part of the call of justice, a distinct romanticist
upsurge of thought and feeling to inspire political thought and deed.

The author of the above poem is the nationalist poet-icon, Conrad Ferdinand Meyer, who actually
wrote his verse on behalf of Swiss nationalism. Nevertheless, the words underpin the romantic
drive that Haushofer and Hess felt and understood. It was this drawing back to the romanticist
spirit that Haushofer tried to achieve in Hess, but unfortunately it didn't draw Hess away from Hitler
because Hess mistakenly believed that Hitler's thoughts and feelings were governed by the same
romanticist purpose, something he became convinced of as a result of Hitler's flowery and colorful
romanticist display before the Munich court. Hitler's act was one of deception aimed to win over
bürgerlich opinion. Hess adapted in his ways and veered away from his socialist theorizing to think
in terms of a broad and much fairer basis for the NSDAP without having to always highlight the
vanguard role of the German working-class. Under the influence of his romanticist illusions he
began to think in terms of meshing the NSDAP broader based social-composition he had in mind
with a greater identification on the part of the party with German Romanticism and the virtues of a
strong patriotic past.

89
 THREE

The Battle for Ideas 1924/25

“Die nun kommende Zeit lag wie ein schwerer Alpdruck auf den Menschen,

brütend wie fiebrige Tropfenglut”

– Adolf Hitler

“Er kennt mich; das gegenseitige Vertrauen bis zum Letzten,

das Verstehen ist da.”

– Rudolf Hess speaking of Hitler

3.1 In Landsberg Prison

Hitler was able with the connivance of a sympathetic judge to make his trial into a media
sensation.[1] Hess was able to follow the trial [while awaiting his own] in the newspaper articles
which reproduced extracts of Hitler's court address.[2] What Hitler had to say left a very strong
impression on him and wishing to let his parents know 'whom' he had discovered he sent them press
trial cuttings and a copy of Hitler's final remarks.[3] Unfortunately, Hess' small package containing
the items went astray so that they didn't receive what he intended until Erna Hanfstaengl sent a copy
of Hitler's closing address on his behalf. This suggests how tight the personal circle of friends and
associates around Hitler actually was.

Hans Hanfstaengl [1887-1975] was an Art connoisseur who had been brought up in the United
States and whose English and knowledge of Art gave Hitler a 'World View' of international current
affairs, Art, the media and American values. This was how Hitler first developed an interest in
mass production models and the new architectural feature of the American skyscraper.
Hanfstaengl, or 'Putzi' as he was fondly known as, proved to be too much of an intellectual giant for
Hitler, who didn't like being lectured about Art. Nevertheless, in the days of the trial it was this
young intellectual with a love for media sensation who kept [with the assistance of his sister] the
Hitler circle informed of what was happening.

In Hess' case it seems forlorn from his point of view that even he was dependent on the Hanfstaengl
siblings in regard to relating back to his parents news of the trial. This suggests how strongly how
Hans Hanfstaengl was more of a dominant personality in the lives of the people around Hitler
while Hess remained frustrated and distant. His one consolation being his able finally to send a

90
letter to his parents, in which he could express his own views on Hitler, describing his final court
courtroom address as “wohl eine der besten, gewaltigsten Reden, die er je gehalten hat.”[4]

Hess developed an interest in the foreign press and developed his critical faculties through reading
press reports to help him with his own style of writing for propaganda. In one summary of his ideas
he writes how, “Von vielen Seiten – auch von solchen, die Hitler sonst freundlich gegenüberstanden
– ist seine Tat vom November als 'übereilt', 'außenpolitisch unmöglich' und noch schärfer abgelehnt
worden.[5] He adds:

“Das Urteil würde wesentlich anders ausfallen, wenn den Betreffenden bekannt wäre, was in den nicht
veröffentlichen Sitzungen (des Gerichts) dargelegt wurde und leider der Öffentlichkeit vorenthalten werden
muss.” [6]

He suggests had Hitler shared in Ludendorff's status as a national-icon he would never have been
sentenced at all. He feels the court had to be “unjust” because of the external pressure from the
Reich government which demanded a prison sentence for someone it deemed as a dangerous
national revolutionary. As Hitler's upbringing belonged to the masses and neither to the
Bildungsbürgertum or the former Wilhelmine elite his character was defined as being more easily to
judge and make a scapegoat of. What the government hadn't figured on would be the media hype
around the count case, which gave Hitler such excellent public exposure that even his enemies were
impressed. Nevertheless, Hess was right in his assumption that Hitler had to be sentenced on
account of the disapproval of the Allied Control Commission, which would not have approved of
Hitler's acquittal, especially after having preached a 'National Revolution' and German nationalist
resurgence.[7]

As there were those among the German Establishment and the Bavarian judiciary who had
supported Hitler, especially the Bavarian Minister for Justice, Gürtner [1881-1941], this reveals the
degree of connivance in making sure Hitler received a reduced sentence. He was officially
sentenced to six years, although privately it was known that this would probably be reduced to six
months. Despite this his circle of friends and associates condemned the sentence as “unjust” and
criticized the ruling Establishment for its weakness. Hess regarded Hitler's sentence as an example
of “national betrayal” and “injustice” and speaks of “false values” and “cowardice” regarding the
distant political stance taken by the Reichswehr commander, General von Seeckt. Seeckt, who,
although having long since opposed the republic, had on account of his lack of “honor,” so argued
Hess, weakly accepted it.[8] Referring to von Seeckt's statements in another case [Der Class-
Prozeß][9] Hess gives the impression of this powerful reactionary figure shirking away from
national responsibility; a view shared by influential reactionaries who conspired to eventually bring
about von Seekt's downfall.[10] Hess compares von Seeckt to Gustav Ritter von Kahr [1862-1934],
whom he equally condemned for his weakness and accused of having committed 'nationalist
betrayal. Hitler, hesitant about publicly criticizing the army, made no reference to von Seeckt and
the army's 'neutrality' during his Putsch, but he was vociferously belligerent against von Kahr.[11]
Complimenting Hitler's verbosity, Hess asserts, “dass er nicht nur der bester Volksredner
Deutschlands, sondern – was oft genug angezweifelt wurde – auch einer der ganz wenigen zur
letzten entschlossenen Tag fähigen Menschen ist.”[12]

Hess turned to his favored pastime, which was reading the foreign press reports. He was intrigued
to see the British reaction to Hitler's court case. Surprisingly, he was with his limited knowledge of
English able to scan The Times, especially an article expressing the views of the British Indian
Viceroy, Lord Curzon. This was how Hess first formed his over exaggerated sympathies for the
reactionary and partly anti-Semitic British aristocracy, which was a feature of his personality that

91
became deeply ingrained and was to influence his decision to fly Britain on his solo-peace Mission
in May, 1941.[13] Hess saw the western democracies as fundamentally weak, although sees merit
in their ruling elites, especially the British one, in possessing enough power and influence to sustain
the running of a world empire. The French didn't impress him so much. It was their Art and
literature to which he was attracted. In admiration of the British aristocratic ideal he praises their
obsession for Public Schools and for sport, which in his view provided the British nation with
sufficient military strength and a good officer cadre to administer the British Empire, arguing:“Nur
durch den vielen Sport sind die Engländer fähig gewesen, in so kurzer Zeit ein brauchbares Heer
aufzustellen.” [14]

His remarks represent an intelligent observation because Britain in a steady state of nationalist
decline did rely heavily on its ruling elite and Public School ethos to sustain the empire.[15] Hess'
comments on the congratulatory telegram Lord Curzon had sent to von Kahr on the eve of the
Munich Putsch. He sees how the Viceroy had apparently thought von Kahr ready to lead a
“German National Revolution.”[16] Hess is impressed with the British aristocratic code of honor,
which in his view supersedes the embarrassingly humiliating one of the Germans whom he feels is
unable to keep its word. Hess deliberately falsifies his interpretation of the part played by von Kahr
in the Munich Putsch, omitting the facts relating to the Bavarian Minister-President's being forced
into a partnership with Hitler at gunpoint in a Munich theater. One assumes Hess only exaggerates
Lord Curzon's personal honor and benign interest in German nationalist affairs to humiliate von
Kahr's 'betrayal' of the “National Revolution.” The British and German press ran abound with
rumors on the eve of the Putsch fiasco. Probably Curzon knew of the probability of there being
some kind of march, either on Munich or Berlin, but in fact wasn't able to gag the precise nature of
von Kahr's position in terms of actual participation in an act against the state.

Hess becomes deliberately misleading with his ideas and information as he switches from one
subject to another during the drafting of his first propaganda summaries, thus revealing a chaotic
state of mind. In these early years of his career he was unable to focus on one political angle. After
having reflected upon Lord Curzon's congratulatory telegram to von Kahr, he avoids developing his
critical political commentary and begins a new theme: the political situation in
Czechoslovakia.[17] In his view the nation state of Czechoslovakia was an aberration. It had
within its border a large ethnic population of 3 million Germans within the Sudetenland[18] and this
'injustice' Hess would later address in more specific detail in his Sudetendeutsches Memorandum in
June, 1938,[19] paving the way for the young state's dismemberment and humiliation. Hitler
regarded the Czech state in a similar fashion, although he wasn't as particular as Hess was to be
about what was to take its place. [20] It was Hess who was to develop the idea of the 'family
community of racially compatible nations' and not Hitler, who was blinded only by the concept of a
Großdeutsches Reich. [21]

Hess makes broad sweeps in his propagandistic style over economic conditions too, exclaiming: “In
wirtschaftlicher Hinsicht konnte ich als fachlich Gebildeter zu meiner Überraschung feststellen, dass Hitler
viel eingehendere Kentnisse besitzt, als ich für möglich hielt, dass er an utopische Versuche nicht denkt,
sondern auf völlig realen Grundlagen fußt.” [22] He reveals in his altered assessment of Hitler the
NSDAP leader's 'astonishingly' apparent grasp of economic questions. Hess emphasizes Hitler's
economic understanding because here is a subject area he feels he knows well. His admiration
soars as he writes:

“Hitlers Gedanken richten sich vor allem auf bessere Produktionsmethoden, auf erhöhter
Erzeugung. Hier verweist er vor allem auf Ford, der für wenige hundert Dollar ein ausgezeichnetes
Auto liefert, so dass die breite Masse in der Lage ist, sich Kraftwagen zu erwerben.” [23]

92
Hess overlooks Hitler's childish fantasy of owning a car and praises instead the ideal of
empowerment Hitler appears to be handing all Germans through an equality in status and material
gain. This would help provide Hess with the essence of the NS-Volksgemeinschaft, of a racial
community living in harmony and equality. He thinks Hitler's embracing of mass production
techniques is highly original, revealing an intuitive intellectual grasp of economic matters and the
use of modern technology. In truth Hitler was reiterating what he had previously heard in Hans
'Putzi' Hanfstaengl's 'American Impressions'.

Hess took Hitler's enthusiasm for America seriously, whereas in actual fact Hitler just flirted with
his temporary 'American Vision' of mass production and skyscrapers. Hitler became interested in
Henry Ford's automobile production techniques and aimed to have them introduced into
Germany,[24] telling Hess that mass production could be used to the advantage of the whole
German population in many ways. Later, Hess would vociferously embark on a “Car Campaign” in
the 1930s to reinforce the ideal of private car ownership for the people.[25] Of course these would
be the German Volkswagen or other German models. The intention Hess had was to promote a
“German Economy” against foreign competition especially against the American car industry. In
racial terms the economic program he and Hitler had in mind was one that would allow for an
“Aryanized” economy dedicated to the betterment of all German citizens. The combinations of
ideals, fantasies and utopia plans characterized the Hess-Hitler partnership in Landsberg. Hess,
with his university experience behind him, was the exponent of serious practicalities when it came
to interpreting Hitler’s dreams of greatness and transformation. Otherwise Hitler preferred his
sketching, his big architectural volumes and his childhood memories of Linz, the theater and of his
mother. The childish quirk in Hitler would reemerge as soon as he was in office in 1933 and
dedicated the first six months of his reign to rereading his favorite childhood author Karl May.[26]

One begs the question that if these childhood awakenings of Hitler were so obvious why did Hess
pander to them and provocatively encourage them as signs of greatness in a future great German
leader. The answer is a simple one and when Hitler’s opponents and critics would learn the hard
way: they simply underestimated him. Hess didn’t. He gained insight in Landsberg into the
emotional and delicate nature of the young aspiring imprisoned Hitler, but he recognized to Hitler’s
tremendous energy and powers of concentration and of his personal “unshakable will;”
characteristics that were to shape his future dictatorship and ones Hess encouraged because he felt
as he had previously written in his essay on the requirement needed for a “Great Man” were in
Hitler being ultimately fulfilled.[27] He saw in Hitler a synthesis for that was “good” in the
German condition in an age of humiliation and economic depression and uncertainty; and what’s
more he found Hitler had the effect of stirring his former Romanticism; something that contributed
to Hess modifying his Socialist position and of recognizing the need that capturing the hearts of the
archetypal middle-class voter, and not just the working-class per se would be the guarantee for
seizing through electoral campaigning and propaganda political power. The fact, too, that all future
campaigns would take on the character of an armed battle against the “unwanted” republic would
further fulfill the romantic notion in both the minds of the two conspirators in Landsberg that their
future plans depended on mobilizing the party as if it were the army of fallen comrades from the
trenches. The deep perceptibility Hitler had about the German nation owing its future greatness to
the sacrifice of the war dead of the world war was one that also captivated Hess and brought him to
thinking about Hitler as de facto the “future man.”

* * *

Hess envisaged himself as a pragmatist capable of grasping mass production techniques and the
idea of a racially bonded national community. He recognized intelligently that the task wouldn't be

93
a simple one. He identified the terrain of struggle ahead, especially in regard to Germany's
financial burdens placed on her through reparations. He directs his most vociferous attacks against
the Entente's post war policy of penalizing Germany through an unbearable “Steuerbelastung der
Wirtschaft”[28] and argues the German economy has no other alternative than to capitulate before
high finance, handing over responsibility for the national means of production. This went against
Hess' idea of communal involvement in the running of the economy as presented in his ideas on
Stände. His views also unmask his latent non-Marxist socialism, whose antisemitic orientation
under the guiding impetus of Gottfried Feder's Das Manifest zur Brechung der Zinnsknechtschaft
[29] led him to believe that by high finance capital he meant Jewish capital and its apparent
enslavement of the German people. He stresses the “Sklavenarbeit” of the average German worker
and bitterly recriminates against the conditions forced upon them, including the living of life “an
der Grenze des Existenzminimums.”[30] Only one man can stop this unacceptable state, he thinks,
and that is the 'preordained man' – the messiah-like figure who will sweep away 'injustice.' He sees
Hitler in his Messianic role for the first time in April, 1924, and comments upon Hitler's maturing
characteristics he feels now meet the criteria of his own romanticist article, Wie wird der Mann
beschaffen sein, der Deutschland wieder zur Hohe fuhrt?[31] He jubilates over Hitler's apparent
coming of age, writing: “In Voraussicht des Kommenden hat Hitler gehandelt – musste er
handeln!”[32] And adds: “Über Hitlers Fähigkeiten im allgemeinen kann man sich wiederum nur
in persönlich Umgang ein völliges Urteil bilden. {...} Klar, einfach und dabei außerordentlich
geistreich in allen seinen Äußerungen, erhält man bald den Eindruck, es mit einer ganz bedeutenden
Persölichkeit zu haben.”[33]

At this juncture in his life, just before the commencement of his prison sentence in May, 1924, Hess
recognizes in Hitler the man of future change. The cause for his new attitude lies in his reaction to
Hitler's final court address, which encouraged him in late March, 1924, to voluntarily give himself
up to the authorities after a period of hiding with Karl Haushofer and his wife.[34] Hess had
followed the Hitler Trial through press reports and had formulated his views on the 'emerging man'
in brief propaganda sketches, in one of which he writes: “Bei aller persönlichen großen
Bescheidenheit im Umgang {mit anderen} besitzt er {Hitler}einen gewaltigen Glauben an sich
selbst. Er hat recht behalten, da er einst seinen Kameraden im Felde erzählte, er würde der beste
Volksredner Deutschlands werden, obwohl er damals das Gefühl hatte, beim ersten Auftreten in der
Öffentlichkeit vor Schüchternheit kein Wort herausbringen zu können. Er wird recht behalten,
wenn er heute die felsenfeste Überzeugung hat, dass er auf die Dauer doch nicht aufzuhalten ist,
dass er eines Tages trotz allem in Berlin dort stehen wird, wo er stehen will und muss.”[35]

Hitler was sentenced on 1st April, 1924, with a five year prison sentence and fined 200 Goldmarks.
On the condition of good behavior he was promised an early release. He was interned in Landsberg
am Lech – 60 km from Munich – where other Putsch conspirators, among them Hermann Esser and
Emil Maurice, were sentenced. At this time Hess' parents had decided to return to Alexandria.
Hess decided against accompanying them. He was technically a free man, having not yet received
his prison sentence. On April 18th, 1924, he writes a postcard holidaying with Ilse Proehl.[36]
After wishing his parents well he writes, “Ich genieße den Sport, besonders nachdem man nicht
wissen kann, ob ich nicht eine Zeitlang auf ihn verzichten kann.” Thoughts of his impending trial
don't unsettle him as he adds, “Vor Mitte Mai {Aufhebung der Volksgerichte!} muss meine Sache
erledigt sein.” With a retrospective look at his own conduct in court, he ends his card arrogantly
with,”Freu' mich auf mein 'Auftreten'.”[37]

Hess was nevertheless troubled over his fate. This suggests that despite his superficial confidence
he wasn't so sure how he would respond to his imprisoned circumstances. His emotional ease
appeared to have deserted him as not even Ilse Proehl could settle his inner restlessness. He tells

94
his parents, “Von hier nicht viel Neues.”[38] It is as if the ghost of his former self has re-awoken
from the trenches. One recalls how this phrase described his disillusionment while serving on the
war front. His struggle appears sharply altered as Hitler began serving a sentence under the aura of
martyrdom. Hess writes: “Ich gedenke, mich nun doch nächster Tage zu stellen, damit es Klarheit
gibt.”[39] He was anxious of his not being sentenced at all and being denied the same status of
martyrdom he felt Hitler was 'celebrating'. He virtually willed his prison sentence, writing in
dramatic tones: “Die scheinen mich nicht gerade sehr zu verfolgen; aber es schwebt immer das
Schwert des Damokles über mich.”[40]

Hess' idea of Fate controlling his life belongs to the ghost of his former self in the trenches when he
had seen his fate in terms of judging who had the 'right' to live and who didn't. A court reprieve
against his having a prison sentence would have been equal to a spiritual death in his view. He
couldn't face the prospect of being denied martyrdom as he writes, “(...) wenn ich nicht hingehe,
holen sie mich später mal in einem Augenblick, der mir noch viel weniger passt als heute.” [41] He
suggests that if he transgresses the conditions of his bail he might have to face imprisonment on
unwelcome terms. Hess feels at thirty years of age that he must go to prison while he feels ready
for it. His reasons, however, are lame. He wants to go to prison not because he wants to work
politically at Hitler's side, but because he is angered with himself for not having completed his
university education; he becomes peculiarly governed by the notion that he can complete his
education in the 'university of life' while 'safe' with political comrades in prison. Hess expresses
here an example of his irrational nonsense; something that would handicap his political career and
end in the fiasco of his solo-peace mission in May, 1941. His dropping out of university deeply
aggravated him, although in the spirit of oxymoron he expresses again his irrational reasons for
enjoying prison life: “So kann ich doch immer, wenn ich wirklich eine Zeitlang nach Landsberg
komme – in Ruhe studieren, in interessanter Gesellschaft. Verpflegung soll gut sein, gemeinsames
Wohnzimmer, Einzelschlafzimmer, Garten, schöne Aussicht also!”[42]

Although at first Hess' impressions of Landsberg are positive, it is curious how he takes up once
again his previous correspondence with his mother. He reflects his fears mixed with a beguiling
insistence on his own place in history as he writes to her, quite forgetting the reasons for their
earlier fall-out. He does her the kindness of not lecturing her about his anti-Semitism as he had
done before, although in keeping with his new revelation about himself as having discovered the
'true' Hitler his words begin to overwhelm her with thoughts and deep reflections on ideas that
Hitler has. He is to an extent 'selling her' Hitler in a manner not unaccustomed to his earlier
propaganda sketches. Klara Hess, not quite sure what to make of these bold declarations of faith in
Hitler as Germany's future leader, resorts to writing of her daily concerns for her son just as she had
done when he had been a patriotic volunteer back in 1914. In May, 1924, as her son began his
prison sentence, she tried to ease his tension through motherly words, but experiencing the spirit of
oxymoron under a different guise she mixes her concerns with rebukes, refuting his excessive
dosage of anti-Semitism he had previously given her. In fact Klara Hess, writing from her old
home in Alexandria, had turned her back on politics and was concerned only with the new dawn
Egypt promised to offer as she went about rebuilding her family life, supported with emotional
comfort by her sixteen year old daughter. As these concerns preoccupied her she wrote to her eldest
son less. Hess contributed again to their fracturing relationship, boasting with his talk of Hitler and
of the very 'important' people he knew in prison, writing, “Außer Hitler sind noch drei andere
Altbekannte hier: Oberstleutnant Kriebel, Dr. Weber, Maurice, weiter noch zwei Mann der
Sturmabteilung, mit denen ich früher noch nicht zusammengekommen war. An Besuchen fehlt es
nicht. Eben waren Major Siry und Pernet da. Ludendorff selbst kommt auch öfters (...)”[43]

95
Hess' grappling of self-important themes and his young egotistical nature crying out to win approval
from his mother is an attempt to reassure her that he is doing well and that his career [in prison!] is
progressing. One can imagine the stir he hoped to cause by mentioning among his name-dropping
the presence of Ludendorff with whom he expects to meet up with. He had previously written to
the general and had been the first, back in 1920, to have sent him interesting information about the
origins and propaganda material of the NSDAP and about Hitler's ability to connect with his
audiences as an effective volkish-nationalist agitator. Now, in prison, he was hoping for even
bigger and better changes, seeing the scenario between Hitler and Ludendorff as having altered. He
still admired the general, but felt that Hitler on the basis of his defense at his trial was the bigger
star. Ludendorff didn't see it like this and when he did come to visit, accompanied by Alfred
Rosenberg, it was to speak over the founding of his new National Socialist volkish-nationalist
block. Hitler's and Ludendorff's egocentricity naturally clashed and in choosing Hitler, Hess thus
rejected Ludendorff – symbolizing a gigantic caesura in his life as breaking from Ludendorff meant
releasing his previously held views about Romanticism and solidarity with elitist figures from the
Establishment. As Hitler had done Hess had already rejected Gustav Ritter von Kahr as a 'traitor';
now he was to support Hitler in condemning Ludendorff. This would cause a strain on Hess'
relationship with Karl Haushofer, who still maintained Ludendorff was a man of honor and
reputation, while Hess at Hitler's side was becoming increasingly nationalist and revolutionary.

Hess identifies the importance of his political work in terms of Fate. He doesn't reflect
conventional religious views. God remains concealed amidst his confused embracing of the
Deutsche Glaubensbewegung a pseudo-religious movement among disparate evangelical groups
worshiping Hitler as their spiritual mentor and cultivating the image of a heroic Jesus as an Aryan
superman. The movement's eccentricities embarrassed Hitler who was wary that their fanaticism
would drive ordinary bürgerlich voters away from the NSDAP. Hess absorbed not all the elements
of this religious sect, but he did appreciate worship of God as an almighty entity in the spirit of
Germanic saga. His spiritual views were thus unconventional, but not publicly expressed as
Ludendorff had done in his dabbling with Germanic mysticism under the influence of his wife
Malthide. This was another reason why both Hess and Hitler alienated Ludendorff and not just
because of his political ambitions. Turning to his mother, who remained stead fast in her traditional
Catholicism Hess reassures her of his spiritual state and a a new physical vigor, telling her:
“Überhaupt brauchst Du Dir in keiner Weise Sorge um mich zu machen, weder um mein
körperliches noch sonstiges Wohlergehen.”[44] Convinced of his own destiny under the illusions
of the guiding hand of Fate he believed directing him, he describes his sense of calm serenity in his
prison room: “Ich sitze z. Zt. in meinem Schlafzimmer am Schreibtisch, durch die großen Fenster
dringt freundliche Stille. Alles ist blitzblank gesäubert worden – wie täglich -, während ich heut'
morgen mit Hitler zwischen den blühenden Obststräuchern des Gartens wandelte und später turnte
u. sportelte, wozu sich zu meiner großen Freude auch Hitler entschlossen hat.”[45]

In Landsberg prison Hess becomes Hitler's friend. This represents yet another caesura in his life to
add to the political one he felt he had experienced in recognizing Hitler's potential 'greatness' at his
trial. Friendship with Hitler meant that Hess was learning about how to enmesh aspects of one's
personal life with politics – no easy undertaking, as Hess was soon to realize, as a union of one's
personal life with the political implied a totality and commitment to the movement and a deeper
negation of oneself. This was a personal revolutionary change that Hess felt he was becoming
ready for. His prognosis had turned out correct after all: prison life was a learning curve. Besotted
with soaring love for his political accomplice he writes of Hitler: “Er sieht überhaupt glänzend aus
bei der guten Ernährung und bei der Unmöglichkeit, bis tief in die Nächte hinein von Besprechung
zu Besprechung zu hetzen.”[46]

96
Hess' acceptance of Hitler as friend and accomplice implied overcoming further obstacles together.
It also caused him to raise his expectations of Hitler and to prove himself increasingly critical when
he could. In May, 1924 – still early days in their prison relationship – he expressed concern over
Hitler's inability to have any influence over the changing fortunes of the movement, which as a
result of Ludendorff's interference and squabbling factions was rapidly deteriorating. He admits to
Hitler's failings privately in a letter to his mother: “Freilich, draußen fehlt er (Hitler) – er fehlt seine
eingehende Persönlichkeit, seine Autorität, der sich die kleinen Kläffer beugen.” [47] Wishing to
dampen his criticism, he condemns others whom he feels have “betrayed” Hitler. This is an indirect
reference to Ludendorff. Of the squabbling contenders competing for influence within the new
National Socialist volkish Block, Hess writes: “Vorläufig beißt man sich um richtige Dinge lustig
gegenseitig in die Beine, macht Dummheiten über Dummheiten, vergißt in blinder Wut, wo der
wirkliche Feind steht.”[48] He then bursts forth with a surge of enthusiasm for Hitler, the only one
in his view from keeping himself erect and his political gaze focused amidst the turbulent times,
adding: “Läßt Hitler eine richtunggebende Erklärung bzw. läßt er sie durch einen der Besucher
verbreiten, eine Erklärung hat, so hängt 'seine' Presse einige abschwächende dumme Sätze hinten
dran. Nun, er übergießt auch diese sog. 'Hitler-Presse' mit beißendem Spott. Es ist ein Jammer,
dass er immer wieder mit diesen Blättern und Blättchen gleichgestellt wird.”[49]

The so-called Hitler-press consisted of the same nationalist papers that had previously praised the
NSDAP leader for his courtroom address; now they turned on him, which in Hess' view reflected
the moral bankruptcy of the bürgerlich press, which he saw as Jewish controlled. He raised the
gauntlet against the newspaper men who thought Hitler politically finished: “Also Hitler ist wohl u.
munter und durchaus nicht irgendwie 'niedergebrochen' – in Gegenteil.” [50] He praises Hitler's'
knowledge of varying subject matter. He identifies Hitler as the 'knowledgeable man' of political
gifts, thinking only he can turn events around in Germany. His admiration knows no bounds as he
praises Hitler's mastering of detail and diverse questions: “Ob er nun über Straßenbau, über das
Auto als zukünftiges Beförderungsmittel auch des kleinen Mannes in die Natur – wie in Amerika –
über Kriegsschiffarmierung – mit anschließender positiver und negativer schlagender Kritik an
Tirpitz spricht, überall merkt man, dass er sich eingehend mit den Dingen beschäftigt hat.”[51]

Hess' recognition of Hitler's potentiality and apparent depth of knowledge left him neglectful of
Hitler's egoism, which battered and scoffed at intellectualism; a character attribute that prevented
him from actually harnessing genuine knowledge. Hitler's struggle reflected one of a personal,
emotional nature as he faced challenging ideas and political opposition. The open side he was
prepared to reveal was his engaging rhetoric and forcing home of his propaganda, which together
with Hess' support he decided in re-expressing in written form for his new project: his book, Mein
Kampf. The beginnings of the manuscript actually didn't go under that title and was known firstly
and rather clumsily as Vier Jahren Kampf gegen Dummheit und Lüge.[52]

Hess had had no friends since the death of Richard Wunderling as a marine officer during the First
World War.[53] His friendship to Hitler arose in a similar fashion. In school he had shared the
same boarding cell as his school friend. In prison he was Hitler's neighbor, so that the two were in
and out of each other's cells. Hess expresses a love for Hitler's personal interests. He learns about
his past and formative years in Vienna – 'good' material for Mein Kampf – and of one of his rare
visits abroad, to Switzerland in summer 1923. He feels he has discovered something philosophical
– something Nietzsche-like – about the man he admires. He recalls on one occasion: “Gestern
abend nach dem Essen, als wir noch lange beim Tee in dem gemütlichen Korbsessel- u.
Topfblumeneck saßen – bei von Verehrern geschickten Kuchen usw., die nie ausgehen – erzählte
er (Hitler)in seiner packenden lebendigen Art von seiner Reise nach Zurich.”[54] That Hitler had

97
dared to make such a journey trip is revealing, as he had previously not wanted to contaminate his
home-grown Germanic experiences through foreign 'contamination'!!

Hess writes of the embarrassing greeting Hitler had in Lindau, where “weißgekleidete Jungfrauen”
whom he describes as beauties “mit Raditschingtira” and the accompanying music of a brass band
were waiting for him outside the station.[55] Hitler regarded the whole episode as
“fürchterlich”[56] and blamed the whole experience on his intellectual adviser, Dr. Gansser, who
held this distinction of being at Hitler's side until that summer of 1923. Gansser had always
organized Hitler's travel arrangements and meetings, but in regard to the Lindau visit, which he had
arranged so as to give Hitler fresh insight in a Nietzsche like fashion (Nietzsche's pastime had been
to visit the Swiss border lands and scale the Alpine peaks) to Swiss hospitality and culture. Aghast
and embarrassed by the sight of the pretty girls Gansser had paid for along with the band for his
surprise welcoming, Hitler increased his vociferous criticism of intellectuals. Dr. Gansser was
sacked and Hitler decided to refrain – whatever the best intentions – from traveling abroad again.
[57]

Not possessing the camera he had once had before in his penchant for amateur photography and
self-portraits Hess was only able to recreate a visual experience of the working life and socializing
in Landsberg prison in his letters. His portrayal of prison life reveals a love for self-indulgent
bürgerlich tastes, which wasn't quite in keeping with his ritualized image as the consciously hard
work nationalist and revolutionary. He loves tea and cake, which Hitler enjoys sharing too.
Sharing their eating habits draws the two accomplices together. They also embrace the delights of
nature in its summer glory in the prison garden, where they do physical exercise and, to Hess'
astonishment, play competitive games. Writing of the garden Hess tells his mother, “Der Garten
zieht sich noch weiter hin. Für unsere Benutzung steht ein anderer Teil zur Verfügung. Die
Festung sind mehrere zusammenhängende große Baulichkeiten, modern u. geschmackvoll, ganz
von Gärten umgegeben, teils sind es Gemüsegärten. Die Bewachungsposten sitzen bei uns, diskret
unseren Augen verdeckt, im Türmchen.”[58]

His letters to his mother concentrate on daily prison routine and the joys of nature as well as his
interest in home cooking – cakes sent usually by Hitler's admirers the Bechsteins. In his other
letters to Ilse Proehl Hess is politically more engaging, preferring to write to her instead of his
mother about the intensity of his political beliefs and anti-Semitism. This characterized his political
alienation away from his mother, his first mentor, as he recognizes the degrees of their strained
relationship, while Ilse represents idealistically for him a new cherished cause, seeing both himself
and her as racial entities of 'racial man' and 'racial woman’. Having been in a previous relationship
when she had lived in Berlin Ilse wasn't so accommodating of Hess' romanticist naivety, although
she grew gradually accustomed to his romanticist leanings and was impressed with his apparent
political path at Hitler's side, whom like Hess she admired as a man of charisma and power.

Hess began to write to Ilse more frequently than his mother, although she didn't appreciate the
significance of this privileged position. In Hess' thinking he no longer had a mentor to write to, but
to an accomplice-in-arms, whom he felt understood his politics. She certainly understood his anti-
Semitism and was complimentary of his chosen outbursts against the Jews. She was also intrigued
to be given an in-depth personal insight into Hitler, whom Hess now began affectionately to call
“Der Tribun.” In a letter dated 18th May, 1924 he indulges in his intimate portrayal of the man he
has come lovingly to admire: “Der Tribun sieht glänzend aus. Sein Gesicht ist nicht mehr so
mager. Die erzwungene Ruh' tut ihm gut. Neben der reichlichen Kost der Festung kommen ständig
Liebesgaben, von den sauersten Mixed-Pickles bis zu den süßesten Kuchen u. allen nur denkbaren
Würsten u. Konserven dazwischen, so dass wir genügend Abwechslung haben. Er (Hitler) turnt

98
(!vvv), badet, raucht nicht, trinkt außer etwas Bier kaum Alkohol: da muss er ja gesund sein bei
dem Fortfall der sonstigen Hetze, bei ausgiebigem Schlaf, frischer Luft u. bei einem moralischen
Zustand, der alles andere als niedergedrückt ist. Im Gegenteil! An Zukunftsplänen fehlt es ihm
nicht.”[59]

Hess' descriptions are nothing that he would offer a party comrade. They are personal, intimate
reflections, which in some instances even reveal Hitler's childish nature. He comments upon
Hitler's late sleeping habits – a sign of the later erratic work hours of the German dictator who liked
to work at nights – as he would burst unannounced into Hess' private room and show him sketches
he had done, usually improved drafts of architectural creations.[60] This reveals that Hitler's
attentions weren't always steadfastly focused on politics as Hess' were.[61] In fact he so coveted his
architectural interests that he had Ilse at Hess' insistence, fetch particular architectural volumes from
Frau Reichelt, Hitler's landlady in Munich, so that he could work more comfortably on his
architectural projects. This was another indication of Hess' – and this time Ilse' too – of becoming
further drawn into Hitler's personal realm. The childish nature in Hitler Hess reveals as follows,
describing to Ilse: “Während ich heut' nachmittag schrieb – jetzt ist es Nacht – kam er plötzlich zu
mir ins Zimmer und zeigte mir mit leichtem Stolz u. leichter Verlegenheit, beinah wie ein kleiner
Bub, einige Entwürfe in flotter künstlerischer Federzeichnung von seiner Hand, über die er mir am
Morgen, als wir nebeneinander 2½ Stunden zwischen blühenden Sträuchern in der Sonne
wandelten, gesprochen hatte.”[62]

* * *

Drawing a comparison between Hitler and Albert Speer is perhaps appropriate at this juncture just
to indicate how important loving architectural design as a central theme was a key interest to
unveiling Hitler's heart. Architecture was a subject that certainly bonded Speer and Hitler together
and it certainly brought Hess and Hitler closer as an underlying theme in their relationship, too, as
made clear through Hess' reflections when he writes:

“Wir hätten vor allem nichts der Gesamtheit Gehörendes, Einendes, das unseren Domen
entspräche (...). Auch hier müsse einstmals Deutschland vorangehen. Der Kuppelbau wäre z. B.
seit dem Pantheon u. Rom durchaus nicht dem Fortschritt der Zeit weiterentwickelt worden. Man
müßte mit dem heutigen Material u. mit der heutigen Technik noch ganz andere Wirkungen erzielen
können als der alte Petersdom. Er habe z. B. einen großen Nationalbau für große Nationalfeiern, für
(die) Eröffnung des Reichstags usw. entworfen. Wohl wäre der Riesenbau mit seiner über 100m
überspannenden Kuppel kostspielig. Aber das müßte auch nicht von heut' auf morgen werden, u.
wenn die Mitwelt kein volles Verständnis zeige und die Spießer schimpften, die Nachwelt würde es
verstehen.” [63]

These reflections show Hess to be convinced of Hitler's mastery of his architectural designs as if
Hitler were a genius capable of improving upon neoclassical Roman magnificence and transforming
this into an expression of the modern world, when in actual fact Hitler's projection reveal an
unfortunate aptitude for the grotesque and ugly as the envisaged imitation of St. Peter's dome in
Rome would have represented an enormous eyesore dominant in the middle of Berlin. Without
Speer's later improvements, which Hitler was appreciative of believing he had found someone in the
young architect who could represent his personal monumental vision for posterity,[64] these
designs would have caused the future dictator embarrassment. Hess, ignorant of architectural
considerations, failed to see this and it must be said his personal encouragement of Hitler's egotism
in the field of architecture was an aspect of the Hitler-Hess friendship that ultimately was to untie
Hess personally from Hitler in that Hess' bluff and crass admiration for what was inadequate would

99
be plainly revealed. Once this occurred there was no longer the theme of architecture to hold them
personally together, for Hitler had after 1934 Speer's perceived genius and reasonable aesthetic
improvements to turn to.

What this aspect of architectural design within the Hess-Hitler relationship signifies is the frailty of
the personal relationship Hess had to Hitler. In areas of ideological significance Hess was
unsurpassed and in this respect he did recognize the ideological significance of having such great
monumental buildings of grandeur to reflect Hitler's future personal rule, but he saw the buildings
more than this as an example of the future Third Reich's statement of progress and power
representative of the national community as a whole.

In this context Hess was appreciative of architecture in general and would as Hitler's future
Stellvertreter in the 1930s encourage the development and the coming to fruition of designs
proposed by Carl Lörcher, whose modern progressive ideas for modern looking rural settlements
greatly intrigued Hess as did future designs for housing programs sponsored under the NS-
Volkswohlheit ['Peoples' Welfare'] organization. This wider interest in architecture and the people
reveals one of the fundamental differences between Hess and Hitler because Hess unveils himself as
someone genuinely interested in developing an architectural nationalist statement for the racial
community. The modern homes of the future were to be aesthetically conducive to the needs of
'racial man' and 'racial woman' and the upbringing of their families. Homes would reflects solidity
and strength and togetherness, often reflecting an imagined identification with the rural stone
buildings of previous generations in a modern light. This touched on Hitler's interest for stone
masonry, but his drawings mostly reflected the monumental and central city planning and not the
needs and developments for the peoples' community.[65]

3.2 Mein Kampf

Hess' praise of Hitler's architectural interests wasn't at first a deliberate exaggeration in praise of the
NSDAP leader's attention that would later harm their personal relationship. In these early days in
Landsberg prison Hess recognized the potentiality of incorporating these interests within the
general visionary whole for a total transformation of German society into a nationalistically
invigorated and racially conscious peoples' movement, which is how Hess envisaged the future role
of the NSDAP to be. Therefore, as the communal and nationalist interest was dear to Hess' heart he
was willing to engage his mind with those designs Hitler produced for public buildings, especially
the one vision he had for a future grandiose parliament building in which all the regional deputies of
the NSDAP as well as the Gauleiters and Reichsleiters would have their representation under
Hitler, the envisaged supreme leader.

Surprisingly in this contest the parliament and its deputies weren't to be straight forward
representations of a total state under Hitler's leadership, but were in Hess' theoretical interpretation
of the NSDAP program to retain some bearing of the peoples' expressive will, so that in this
building of the future Hitler as leader would be representative of the people and they at the same
time representative of him. This was later a fundamental vision Hess had of people’s unity around
the Myth of the Fuhrer, an argument that also aroused the pseudo-democratic expectations of the
party rank and file during the so-called Reichsdebatten in 1933/34.[66] The controversy of the
Reichsdebatten and the enmity it would arouse in Hitler, who would feel his personal power
challenged, would further harm Hess' relationship to him. Such errors in politically judgment
would form part of Hess’ learning curve. What ultimately mattered to him, however, was the
communal representation of the party in a totalitarian society under the aegis of the NSDAP.
Hitler's personal egotism, a constant battering challenge for Hess to master, was something he

100
believed himself capable of mastering for the cause of racial utopia; and added how he as the
“Gebildete” [the ‘Educated One’] would make Hitler into a better and more qualified leader.[67]

In May, 1924, Hess helped Hitler put his ideas to pen, encouraging him to combine his personal
interests in architecture with a communal representation of the people. Hess reflects, after working
some days with Hitler over Mein Kampf, upon the future lines of the intended publication of the
manuscript, writing:

“Anschließend sprach er (Hitler) mir vom Staatsaufbau, wie er ihn sich denke. Ein beratendes politisches u.
ein wirtschaftliches Parlament, denen vom Senat – der zusammen mit dem Staatsoberhaupt Gesetze erläßt –
die Aufgaben zur Durchberatung zugewiesen werden oder die ihrerseits an den Senat mit Vorschlägen
herantreten. Die Mitglieder des Senats werden durch den Senat selbst zur Hinzuwahl vorgeschlagen u. von
dem Staatsoberhaupt ernannt.” [68]

The fact that Hess is able to write here of a structure represented by the political ensemble of a NS-
Senate, which is to decide upon lawmaking together with the head of state (Hitler) reveals Hess'
belief in the symbiotic development of Hitler representing the party (and hence the people) and the
party (again in Hess' thinking tantamount to a representation of the people) representing Hitler. The
incredulity of a projected working peoples' 'democracy' working through the party and Hitler
together was one of the illusions of the future NS-Volksgemeinschaft Hess deliberately fostered, so
as to pretend that conformity through police repression and surveillance weren't necessary. The talk
of these early years in Landsberg prison is predominately focused on Hess idealistic interpretation
of the people in that he thinks and believes the NSDAP capable of winning over the majority of the
population through its ideas. Pandering to Hitler's idealistic contributions to a future vision of a
monumental, architecturally grandiose vision Hess writes of the NSDAP leader, “An
Zukunftsplänen fehlt es ihm nicht.”[69] In projecting him as the man with a vision (thus deferring
attention principally away from his own) Hess is deliberately encouraging Hitler as a role model for
ideas and innovation, which he never was as long as Hess' encouragement was lacking. Hess'
practical guidelines for economic rationalization and communal development – something he
borrowed from Othmar Spann – provided Hitler with a model for future social and economic
development as Hess shaped the myth of Hitler as 'the servant of the people'.[70]

Hess' support of Hitler's political development through a projection of the Hitler Myth represents a
new, significant challenge in his life,[71] as he decides to mentor Hitler not in a direct way as
Eckardt had done, but through subtle means by first acknowledging Hitler's Nietzsche inspired 'self-
drive' and secondly by giving this the idealistic purpose of 'serving' the goals of the racial Aryan
community.[72] In this way Hess combines around the 'Fuhrer Myth' the attractiveness of German
Romanticism with the communal racial ideological goals of National Socialism. In this context
Hess encourages Hitler to style himself in the writing up of his book as the man of destiny, a
characteristic he developed as a consequence of his and Hitler's meetings with the volkish-
nationalist sage, Housten Stewart Chamberlain, who like other such as the author van der Bruck
envisaged a future Messianic leader leading Germany out of the doldrums. Van der Bruck's
penmanship – he had published shortly before his death his The Third Reich (1923) – fancied a
volkish-nationalist continuity in History as his projected ideal with the future creation of a racial
community and state supposedly mirroring early medieval Germanic conceptions of racial and
nationalist identity. Hess and Hitler were influenced by this genre of volkish-nationalist writing
throughout the twenties, including Hans Grimm's 1927 publication of his Volk ohne Raum, which
all helped to inject a pace and momentum into Hitler's vision of a future Germany. Hess was the
observant reader rather than the lapse and inattentive one Hitler was.[73] The visits to
Chamberlain, after their release, and the encouragement of their elitist supporters amongst Munich's
Bildungsbürgertum – the Lehmanns, the Bechsteins and the Hanfstaengls – gave Hess and Hitler a

101
joint sense of participating together in a volkish-nationalist revival of racial goals. These found
expression in the first volume of Mein Kampf, worked upon in 1924, and the later volume (often
referred to as Hitler's Zweites Buch)[74], appearing in 1927.

Roland Aegerter observes that Mein Kampf was eventually to fall into the hands of an editorial team
working under the direction of Hitler's former regimental commander and head of the NSDAP
publishing group, Franz. Eher Nachf., G. m. b. h., Max Amann, during the late twenties and early
thirties making it into a polished reference book with a name and theme index with easy
accessibility to Hitler quotations giving the work a sense of profundity. The original, without these
embellishments, which Hess and Hitler worked on together in 1924 was lacking in organized
structure and represented, as was clear by Max Amann's disappointment, a crude, haphazard text
with racial and ideological reflections and an autobiographical content. Roland Aegerter writes
how under Amann's direction the book resembled a peoples' 'user-friendly' edition, stating: “Da die
Volksausgabe ein alphabetisch geordnetes Personen- und Sachverzeichnis mit 373
Hauptstichwörtern und zahlreichen Verweisen enthielt, bekam das Buch den Charakter eines
Nachschlagewerks.”[75]

Hess was blind to the inadequacies of trying to put Mein Kampf together as an effective ideological
work as he was too preoccupied with how the book would look in terms of its publication and its
effect upon a wider reading public through advertising. His fascination for the prospect of the
book's future circulation as an official statement of Hitler's attempt to forge party unity left him
bereft of a critical stance towards the book's content. Concerned with the image of the book he
writes in a letter to Ilse:

“Als ich ihm {Hitler} heut' mittag den Tee brachte, führte er mir die Einbanddeckel-Proben für sein Buch
vor. Die Luxusausgabe in elfenbeinernem Pergament. Volksausgabe in Halbfranz; Wir hielten einige
Farben für Rücken und Deckel aneinander.” [76]

It is clear he is drawing Ilse closer into his fixation for the Hitler cult and the abilities he sees in
Hitler. His fascination is limited as a result of the book's content. What contributes to Hess'
blindness are the long readings Hitler undertakes of his scribbling in Hess' cell, often in the dead of
night, when Hitler was able with gust and visual expression to bring to life his ideas, which on the
written page were – when left to the eyes of the critical reader – confused and disorganized.

Hess overlooks this in reference to the autobiographical section of the work, which Hess and some
of the other conspirators behind the Munich Putsch contributed to through personal reminiscences
of August, 1914, which gave Hitler inspiration and the ability to produce a rush of some actually
good writing as the following patriotic description of the nationalist furor and of the approaching
world war illustrates:

“Was mir einst als Junge wie faules Siechtum erschien, empfand ich nun als Ruhe vor dem Sturme.
Schon während meiner Wiener Zeit lag über dem Balkan jene fahle Schwüle, die den Orkan
anzuzeigen pflegte, und schon zuckte manchmal auch ein hellerer Lichtschein auf, um jedoch rasch
in das unheimliche Dunkel sich wieder zurückzuverlieren. Dann aber kann der Balkankrieg, und
mit ihm feughte der erste Windstoß über das nervös gewordene Europa hinweg. Die nun
kommende Zeit lag wie ein schwerer Alpdruck auf den Menschen, brütend wie fiebrige
Tropfenglut, so dass das Gefühl der herannahenden Katastrophe infolge der ewigen Sorge endlich
zur Sehnsucht wurde: der Himmel möge endlich dem Schicksal das nicht mehr zu hemmen war,
den freien Lauf gewähren. Da fuhr denn auch schon der gewaltige Blitzstrahl auf die Erde nieder:

102
Das Wetter brach los und in den Donner des Himmlers mengte sich das Dröhnen der Batterien des
Weltkriegs.”

Although this passage represent a good narrative style and incorporates aspects of the 'poetic' in
Hitler's prose writing with use of an incisive vocabulary relating to the power of nature (for
instance, “der erste Windstoß,” “der gewaltige Blitzstrahl” etc.), he was reliant on the recreation of
the 1914 atmosphere through the collective experience of war reminiscing that Leutnant Kriebel
and Dr. Weber, the two imprisoned volkish-nationalist leaders along with him, provided him with –
especially on the eve of the tenth anniversary of the beginning of the First World War on
1st August, 1924.[77] This reveals to an extent how dependent Hitler was on the company he was
with in order to write effectively. In this instance, Hess' contribution was slightly different in that
he could offer Hitler no powerful war reminiscences (he didn't have any!), but he could assist with
Hitler's sense of intellectual insight.

Like other writers on the First World War around the same time, such as Winston S. Churchill,
certain eloquence was expressed to capture the descent of mankind into what was felt to be an
inexplicable descent into the irrational catacombs of human behavior. Hess was one who believed
this, seeing in the war's outbreak an irrational explosion of patriotic fervor that gripped the nations.
Later, at the Nuremberg Trial, this would encourage him to speak of an “inexplicable mystery”
(“Rätsel”) governing over the fortunes of man in his attempt to describe the ways of Fate. This
wasn't uncommon, as Churchill, too, 'gloriously' wrote of the seemingly power of Fate over men's
minds in his explanations and descriptions of the First World War.[78] The difference between
Hitler and Churchill, however, was that the latter wrote to justify a Liberal interpretation of the
British government's actions and style himself as a guardian of parliamentary democracy, whereas
Hitler wanted to subscribe to no particular school of thought (such was his unabashed mistrust of
intellectualism in any case) and be his own man. He wanted to style himself as a 'genius of
thought,' who understood the platitudes of German Romanticist thought and of volkish-nationalist
yearning for a racial community. Hence, Hess encourages the racist and ant-Semite in Hitler as
much as his intentions towards setting out a course of ideological predetermination and unity for the
party.

Hess was moved by Hitler's telling of August, 1914, and the patriotic upsurge of those days, but
when these descriptions were uttered in unison with a plethora of other themes and ideas then Hess
came to experience the worst aspects of Hitler's congested mind. This wasn't a happy experience
for Hess during his collaboration with Hitler over Mein Kampf, with him informing Ilse, “Ich solle
das Umgeschriebene anhören: Politische Betrachtungen zum Weltkriegsbeginn, Zusammenballen
der Gewitterwolken, bis der Blitz des gewaltigen Geschehens niederzuckt, und in den Donner
mischt sich das Grollen der Batterien des Weltkrieges.”[79] He writes not in his unofficial
secretarial capacity as someone discharged with the obligation of duty, but as someone who has to
endure an intensive outburst of political monologue, which is too overwhelming for him. Here, we
see how Hess felt burdened in his role of responsibility towards Hitler and that his struggle to exact
from Hitler a clear definition and preciseness in his writing style left him having to endure the
explosion of thoughts and multifarious emotions that came his way and troubled him. Working
with Hitler wouldn't always be easy, which suggests how Hess was prepared to work hard for
getting what he presumed to be the 'very best' out of Hitler.

In other instances Hess expresses empathy for Hitler and enjoys immensely Hitler's rendition of the
August, 1914, experience when Hitler's thoughts and emotions are more directed towards his
subject matter and offer clarity. Writing of his feelings of association with Hitler's enlistment

103
process, Hess, relying on Ilse more than ever before, to help digest his own vision of Hitler's views,
writes to her with joy as Hitler (...)

“erzählt seinen Eintritt in bayerische Heer, den Aufmarsch, Fahrt am Rhein entlang, der Zug mit den jungen
Freiwilligen-Regiment kommt am Niederwald-Denkmal vorbei, das durch zarte Nebel in der Sonne
aufleuchtet, die Wacht am Rhein erklingt von den Lippen der Knaben – Kurz darauf in Flandern pfeifen und
singen die ersten Grüße des Todes ihnen entgegen. Regimenter deutscher Jugend neben Regiment stürmt.
Plötlzlich klingt es von weit rechts erst leise, dann immer stärker herüber: 'Deutschland, Deutschland über
alles (...)” [80]

Not only do we picture an image of nationalist unity dating from 1914, but we also detect in Hess
an affirmation of his sense of racial unity all Germans can achieve through the positive engagement
of war. Hess was to prove himself a racial exponent of war and the idea for the collective will of
the masses pushing in this direction was something he had in his mind in terms of forging the
collective unity of youth under the banner of war in his propaganda for the Volksgemeinschaft.

As Hess couldn't always withstand Hitler's intensity while Hitler himself required positive attention
so that he could write,[81] it became important that both men be actively supported among their
supporters in Munich society – otherwise their collaboration over Mein Kampf would never have
brought the book to fruition. Among the supporters of the Hitler camp Helena Bechstein played an
important role providing the two accomplices with a gramophone and recordings of Schubert to
help create the ambiance of a working atmosphere for them both. Hess responded ecstatically,
“Und heut' kam von Bechsteins ein Grammophon, ein weiches gedämpft,” and adds, with thanks of
gratitude, “eine herrliche Stimme singt Schubert.”[82] With the NSDAP descending into rival
factions outside the prison, with Ludendorff leading the National Socialist volkish Block in national
elections,[83] Hitler and Hess find refuge in music and bürgerlich comfort. Only then is the fired-
up nationalist and revolutionary determination of both men able to find expression, with Hess
writing of Hitler, “Wenn er wieder draußen ist, wird er dank seiner Autorität in kurzer Zeit alles
wieder in Ordnung haben.”[84]

Another matter facing Hess was the urgent addressing of Hitler's status as he was without German
citizenship. Before being imprisoned Hitler, as an Austrian citizen, could have been deported by
the German authorities. On 14th October, 1924, news arrived of the Austrian government's
decision to revoke his Austrian nationality, thus ruling out his enforced return to Austria. Hess saw
this as a cause for celebration as with the new fact of Hitler's potential deportation being
annulled, Hess instantly realized that because of Hitler's war record in the Bavarian Infantry he was
entitled to the protection of the Bavarian state. Sentenced by the Bavarian judiciary he thus became
a 'Bavarian problem,' meaning his continuation on German soil was assured. With childish glee,
Hess declares: “Wir haben eine Riesenfreude! Damit muss er (Hitler) über einem Jahr etwa
bayerischer Staatsbürger werden (...).”[85]

The passages Hitler writes for his communal vision of racial society betrays Hess' major influence
on Mein Kampf. Hess slotted in Hitler’s generalized conceptions the ideas of Stände and the
communal development of professional organizations. The intention was to raise the profile of the
average German person and to make him or her feel at the epicenter of racial and ideological
development under the aegis of the NSDAP. Although Hitler never openly acknowledges Spann, or
any other intellectual source [his book lacks references], his generalized views represent an
organized totality of society reflecting Hess' input and indirect appropriation of Spann's views.
Referring to Spann, Hess informs Ilse: “man müsse unterscheiden zwischen den Marxisten, die im
Grunde Individualisten seien, u. den wahren Sozialisten.”[86] He criticizes Marxists on account of
their complicated theories. He proclaims that a racial modification of Spann's model may unravel

104
the essence of the true socialist. He tells his partner with the air of authority: “Der wahre Sozialist
(...) geht von der Gesamtheit aus. Staat, Volkheit, Volk sind in sich geschlossen oder sollten es
sein.”[87]

Hess uses a racially motivated volkish-nationalist vocabulary to define the masses into subdivided
organisms of racial-biological entity, seeing people racially suited to certain professions on account
of either intellect or racial fitness as opposed to their social-class. Hess plays the race card with
alarming brevity and incisiveness and in the process corrupts Spann's communal utopia of seeing
professions organized according to Berufstände for each major profession. There was to be in this
communal vision of society shared by Hess and Hitler a Berufsstand for teachers, one for engineers,
another for members of an automobile association, another for road and construction workers, for
architects, for craftsmen and technicians etc. Each Berufstand would have its own political
affiliation to the NSDAP, so that the party could act as the vehicle for promoting communal
development. The whole of professional life was envisaged as a self sufficient organism, with
society racially projected in terms of the archetypal Aryan body. A Jew didn't fit into this equation
and was to expect his or her banishment to the very periphery of society in accordance with the
NSDAP program.[88] Commenting upon the individual's total absorption into a 'national
community', Hess adds: “Der Einzelne sich nach bestem Können möglichst frei auswirkend für die
Gesamtheit.”[89]

The alternative to this racial vision of a Brave New World was racial decline. Both Hess and Hitler
expressed this fear under the influence of the genre of cultural pessimism prevalent at the time. An
influential work that Hess read, of whose contents Hess relayed back to Hitler for the embellishing
of his cultural and racial arguments was Oswald Spengler's Der Untergang des Abendlandes (The
Decline of the West).[90] Appropriating Spengler's viewpoints Hess uses the carnage of the First
World War as a self-destructive catastrophe in the misfortune of the White Race. Both he and
Hitler wanted the dead, to be collectively honored in a quasi-religious pageantry of honor saluting
their self-sacrifice. Hess proposed a national museum of remembrance. The cultural aspect of
people's lives he envisages being revived through technology and aestheticism, writing: “Unser
Gebiet ist die Technik. Sie läßt sich mit klassischen Formen verbinden – die Gotik bekam durch
die Technik den Nackenschlag! Un welch' äesthetischer Genuß ist an sich ein modernes techniches
Gebilde, an dem alles höchste Zweckmäßigkeit ist, ein Junkers-Flugzeug, eine Schreibmaschine,
eine Hängebrücke bei Budapest, der Hörer eines Telefons!”[91]

Hess embraces modernity, though with one look over his shoulder towards the past and its apparent
volkish roots. A cornerstone of the future Nazi racial community was to be the peasantry.[92] Hess
embraced the volkish-nationalist views of 'blood and soil' within his own quasi-spiritual and racial
interpretation over how the peasants should live. He hoped, in contrast to his later rival, Walter
Ricardo Darré,[93] to promise the peasants new investment, production techniques and increased
yields. Their traditional customs and religious piety he planned to remodel as an effective attribute
of the racial community, emphasizing the Aryan roots of their Christian piety and attachment to
nature. Their modernization, however, remained the most important of his objectives for them as
he writes: “Der ländlichen Bevölkerung sollte in den Schulen ein gewisses Maß von technischen
Kentnissen beigebracht werden.”[94] With a view on his future projections for the Reichsplanung
in the 1930s, especially for its mixed urban/rural planning, Hess telling Ilse: “Ich pfeife auf eine
Romantik, die die Menschen hinter Butzenscheiben ins Dämmerlicht setzt, die Frauen unter der
Härte der Arbeit in früheren Jahren altern läßt. Der Städter geht auf's Land, schwärmt die Romantik
an und freut sich, wenn er abends wieder in seinem modernen, sauberen und zweckmäßigen Heim
in der Stadt anlagt, so sehr ihm viellecht für ein paar Tage die Abwechslung dieser Romantik
gefallen haben mag.”[95]

105
When Hitler was left to express his view on the racial community alone with Hess' collaboration the
results could be shocking, leaving Hitler's image tarnished as an incomplete nationalist politician.
Hitler revealed, too, how he could in these early days be taken advantage of by sympathetic
journalists, as was the case when he gave an interview to the American journalist, George S.
Viereck. Hitler's views became exposed as laughable, especially when his German statements were
translated into English. In Viereck's article he is quoted as saying, “We contend against the forces
of disease and degeneration. Bavaria is completely healthy, because it is not completely
industrialized.” Such comments exposed him as narrow minded. Hess was able to rectify this
problem, enabling Hitler to control his emotional intensity when discussing his ideas. Hitler was to
find that emotion was an effective means of manipulating listeners or readers over to his side, which
still remained a problem when Hitler attempted to communicate through the written argument of his
book.

3.3 Dai Nihon

Karl Haushofer's Dai Nihon was written just at a critical time before the First World War.[96] The
book arouses controversy in terms of its alleged impact on Hitler's Mein Kampf. Hess, who read the
book, appears in Bruno Hipler's estimation as an intermediary of Haushofer's ideas for the benefit of
Hitler, leaving the future dictator the scope and fortitude to put into practice ideas on racial war and
racial extermination. It is the view here that Haushofer's views in Dai Nihon couldn't act as a
prototype model for Hitler's racial conception of war and territorial expansion because they were
too rooted in the 19th Century conception of Great Power relations. One could argue that this
doesn’t make any difference at all bearing in mind the continuity historians have often shown
between the racial-imperialist expansion of the Third Reich and the Kaiser’s Weltpolitik. Yet,
despite the series of parallels one can draw on in terms of defining the foreign policy, wars and
expansion of the two eras, it is clear that the Wilhelmine epoch was one fragmented between
aspects of moral fortitude and Christian piety on the one hand and racial social-Darwinist
philosophizing on the other. Another additional factor to consider is that statesmanship and
diplomacy remained the necessary crafts of a Great Power in those days unmolested from scientific
and narrow-minded racial-expansionist dogma.

Haushofer’s views of 1913 in Dai Nihon thus represent the fragmentation of the Wilhelmine era in
which values such as statesmanship, diplomacy and Christian piety conflicted with social-
Darwinism and racial-subjugation. His troubles aside, the author of Dai Nihon was also mistaken
about his predilections about Russia’s viability for exploitation and settlement. Her great Power
status was as yet not diminished and the economic expansion and the massive railway construction
of the Czarist empire revealed that the mighty colossus was one to be reckoned with; something the
German General Staff actually realized for even with the unveiling of their Schlieffen Plan in
1904/05, their main concern and fears were always over the potential power of Russia. In this
context Haushofer’s pre1914 expansionist reviews do not reflect the traditional conservatives of the
General Staff nor of the traditional diplomats of the Wilhelmstrasse, who dearly wanted to see a
resurrection of the Dreikaiserbund [The League of Three Emperors between Russia, Prussian-
Germany and Austria-Hungary] of 1884, Bismarck crowing triumph of reactionary-conservative
diplomacy in the East.[97]

Haushofer [1869-1946] was as a result of his attachment to the German Military Mission in China
during the 1890s in a very unique position to observe the unfolding state of international relations
of the Great Powers as they competed for their share of influence within the decaying and chaotic
Chinese Empire. The traditional European powers, Britain and France, made their commercial
claims, the Portuguese (the original European power) protecting its Far Eastern influence in Macau,

106
while the Americans, the new global power, sought to strengthen its commercial interests around
Shanghai, center for international trading and banking. The exploitation of China was to have an
inevitable backlash among young Chinese nationalists, who called themselves “Boxers” and
instigated the “Boxer Rebellion” in 1900 against European settlers, many of whom were murdered.
The outrage caused a western international expeditionary force, including an American, Japanese
and German contingent, which participated in occupying Beijing and much of the Chinese
coastline. The “Boxers” were crushed.

Haushofer advocated the Hegelian right of “strength through might” being applied by the Great
Powers in China. In Dai Nihon he took his Hegelian analysis of international relations one step
further, suggesting that the younger, emerging nations had to take certain risks – a kind of leap in
faith (“Der Sprung vom Wissen zum Können”)[98] – to assert their new nationalist credentials. He
maintained that this leap could be based on an acute appreciation of geographical and political
factors.[99] He tied the study of Political Geography to his Geopolitics despite there being a
fundamental difference between the two disciplines. Political Geography, as defined by Otto Maul,
represented the study of the human and geographical landscape, revealing, for instance, Japan in the
Far East and Germany in Europe as modern industrial nations with large populations.

Such geographical knowledge, argued Haushofer,[100] had to 'translate' its understanding of

political geography into geopolitical terms with reasons justifying how a nation should act.
Haushofer pinpointed population growth and culture as the deciding criteria in defining his
Geopolitics. Friedrich Ratzel, who had first introduced the subject of Geopolitics from Britain,
where it was first taught by Mckinder [1861-1947],[101] expressed the view Germany had the right
to dominate a greater geographical space economically and to apply simultaneously its cultural
hegemony over East-Central Europe as well;[102] a legacy of thought Haushofer picked up on and
clearly expressed in his enthusiasm for the culturally dominant geographical area covered by
Germany and Austria-Hungary. The pre1914 volkish-nationalist trend, which influenced
Haushofer, recommended greater 'living space' (Lebensraum) to avoid urban overcrowding.
However, volkish-nationalists of the pre1914 era also embraced the fashionable concept of the
“Garden-City” as a means of transforming urban life into a more palatable life style for the average
citizen and as an alternative means to the dreariness of urban decay and of overcrowding.

Dai Nihon bases its arguments of territorial expansion on the supposed Hegelian 'natural right' of
the German cultural and economic sphere, which, as far as Haushofer was concerned, encompassed
the territorial frontiers of the former pre1914 Central Powers. The principle of national self-
determination in 1919 did away with this scenario, causing Haushofer to reexamine his aristocratic-
reactionary nationalism. Haushofer focused during the republican area on German national self-
determination according to the concept of a Großdeutschland ('a Greater Germany'). He envisaged
a nationalist cultural community that would include the Sudeten Germans, thus bringing his aims
during the late 1930s in conjunction with Hess’ Sudetendeutsches Memorandum.[103] This
overlapping of views with Hess reveals his territorial aims not only to be revisionist but also as
expansionist, too, in conformity with Hitler's vision for a Großdeutsches Reich. Haushofer
represented his revisionist and expansionist aims consistently as a member of the Pan-German
League until its dissolution by the Nazis in 1938.

Geopolitics reacts to the changing political and geographical realities in changing decades.
According to this maxim Haushofer thus saw his subject discipline as a flexible one that couldn't be
fixed within rigid formalities and conditions. Neither Hitler nor Hess would understand this
academic preference for flexibility and the freedom of interchangeable thought within this
discipline and its sister, Political Geography. Although having been a university student Hess

107
wasn't as Bruno Hipler argues in a position to act as an ideological intermediary between Haushofer
and Hitler.[104] Firstly because Dr. Haushofer was a reactionary, rooted in thought and expression
in the Wilhelmine mindset, which focused on traditional territorial aims (e. g. Colonial territories)
and in worldwide spheres of economic and strategic importance in the 'world battle' for material
resources; an argument Dr. Seidl repeated at the Nuremberg Trial to convince the Allied Military
Tribunal that Germany's case for a fair share of world' economic resources and materials in
accordance with her Great Power status had been obstructed and deliberately denied. Dr. Seidl
justifies Lebensraum in his post-1945 definition as a legitimate claim to colonies, resources and
materials just as Britain, France, Soviet Russia and the USA possessed. He understood Lebensraum
as Haushofer did as a subject discipline with legitimate claims and not as one advocating racial war
and extermination.

What Haushofer understood by Lebensraum, implies Dr. Seidl in his defense of German
sovereignty, and what Hitler thought it meant were entirely different concepts lodged between
strategic and pragmatic considerations of Political Geography on the one hand and the imposition,
on the other hand, of prefixed ideological obsessions such as racial colonization and the subjugation
of 'lesser' peoples. In this context Hitler was applying Lebensraum as a maxim of fixed ideological
thought based on his self-imposed Nietzsche quest to fulfill his personal will and to achieve in a
crass interpretation of the 19th Century German philosopher's ways a dominance of the 'higher'
Aryan peoples over the 'lesser ones'. Hitler thus sees himself belonging to a racial epoch of history
with himself in the lead role. His predilections for racial realities were generalized, so that his
helpers assisted in shaping the racial ideal. In this respect there are several intermediaries rather
than one between Hitler and the racial quest for dominance: the romanticism of Housten Stewart
Chamberlain; the author of Volk ohne Raum, Hans Grimm; the volkish-nationalism and 'Blut und
Boden' ideology of Walther Ricardo Darré; the 'Jewish-Bolshevism' of Alfred Rosenberg and the
anti-Bolshevik cultural quest of Joseph Goebbels represent some of the intermediary personalities
between Hitler and his ideological justification for racial war, conquest and extermination in the
East.

Given Hitler's ideological working partnerships with Goebbels and Rosenberg, the justification for
an ideological Lebensraum became more precisely defined in social-Darwinist and racial terms and
left Karl Haushofer and his academic interpretation of Lebensraum isolated and undermined.
Haushofer would play a less than significant role he would hope for in becoming a lecturer at the
Hochschule für Politik in Berlin during the 1930s. His compromised stance with the Nazis is one
that undermined his own position and severely damaged his post-1945 reputation. Bruno Hipler
points out how the Americans would apply certain pressure on Haushofer, attempting to bring him
to trial as Hitler's real ideological teacher and suspecting in him an ideological academic genius
behind the scenes.[105] The author Stefan Zweig realistically sees that Haushofer was no “graue
Eminenz” lurking in the background.[106] Haushofer's son, Albrecht, too, sees in his father a
confused and compromised individual who hired himself out to the regime with the hope of
furthering his aristocratic-reactionary ideas, which never were able to compete with the racial
ideological straight jacket of Nazi racial science and social-Darwinist imperialism.[107]

To see clearly how Haushofer tried in the early days to escape the ideological confinements of Nazi
ideological thinking on race and territorial expansion, one may look at his reactions against Hess
during one of their prison meetings in Landsberg. Hess pressed Haushofer during the summer of
1924 for a precise racial-ideological interpretation of Lebensraum, which the learned academic
refused to give preferring instead to hand Hess a note on which he wrote a precisely styled
academic definition. His words reflect Lebensraum as a combined biological and geographical

108
subject area affecting all living life forms, including human beings, plant life and animals. His
definition written as follows comes as a disappointment for Hess:

“Lebensraum ist ein Teilraum der Erdoberfläche, nach natürlichen oder künstlichen Grenzen auf die
Erhaltung des Lebens der darin befindlichen Lebewesen (Menschen, Tiere, Pflanzen) betrachtet (bestimmter
Lebensformen).” [108]

This explanation was too intellectually overbearing for Hess' mind. He was so disappointed by
what Haushofer had written that it left him still unable to explain the concept to Hitler, who would
have the above definition entirely useless to him. Haushofer had hurriedly written the definition
down under pressure from Hess, who wouldn't budge on this issue – not because he wanted to learn
something, but because he wanted to save face in front of Dr. Weber and Lieutenant Kriebel, the
volkish leaders who had tested him through a direct explanation of Lebensraum, which Hess felt
unable to give. This illustrates how often Nazi leaders used slogans without knowing exactly their
true purpose or definition – they used them because it sounded as if they were totally familiar with
the intellectual meaning of their ideological world view. The fact that Hess struggled with himself
to explain a word he used but didn't understand reveals his failings. His intellect was suited to an
explanation of the racial community and the Judenfrage, with which his mind felt acquainted. As a
result of his disappointment with Haushofer their relationship became strained, with his telling Ilse,
“In einigen Punkten konnte ich aber doch noch sagen, was ich wollte.”[109]

There is another aspect to consider which helps to oppose the view of Haushofer as Hitler'
ideological teacher and that is the fundamental flaw of his Dai Nihon thesis, which was incorrect to
see Russia in a state of decline. The argument here is that if the thesis was flawed then it could
have no bearing on Hitler or anyone else because what it purported to show – German expansion at
the expense of Russia – was incorrect. The necessity of proving the thesis as flawed unmasks
Haushofer's shortcomings during his pre-1914 period. His views from this period can't carry
greater weight because even he during the post-1918 republican period reevaluated them,
recognizing as did other traditionally minded conservatives that the new concept of Soviet Russia
was stronger than expected and could act as a useful ally for Germany in helping to circumvent the
military restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles by doing secret arms testing on Russian soil.

Dai Nihon is flawed and cannot serve as a model for Lebensraum because its conclusions do not
tally. Haushofer argues Japan's advanced industrial development necessitated her colonizing
“living space” on the Asiatic mainland for her growing population.[110] Her military-industrial
sector supported the ambitions of both her army and navy. Japan's navy had been developed on the
British model.[111] In 1894 the Sino-Japanese War began as a result of Japanese provocation and
was halted only when the European powers, anxious to protect their own commercial rights,
intervened on behalf of the 'Celestial Empire'. Japan, nevertheless, had her annexation of Korea, as
her new rice growing colony for her quadrupling population, officially recognized. Japan's foot on
the Asiatic mainland sowed the seeds for the future clash with Czarist Russia, which had ambitions
of acquiring Manchuria and a warm-water sea port for her Pacific Fleet. Russia's aims were
traditional, governed by the ethos of the Romanov dynasty and the nobility that sought to increase
the status in the eyes of the many peoples under the rule of Autocracy and Orthodoxy. Japan by
contrast was developing ambitions of a radical nature as the monarchy played a passive role leaving
the military scope to instill ancient traditions surrounding the cult of the Samurai warrior in its
officer training, thus making manifest the first signs of racial Japanese imperialism. [112]

Haushofer didn't yet identify nations as ones either having 'creative' or 'destructive' characteristics
within them in his portrayal of Powers within his definition of earthly cosmology. He reached this

109
conclusion as a consequence of the First World War and instead of advocating clashes between the
nations he underwent in his post-1918 development like many other nationalist academics feelings
of 'cultural pessimism', arguing that large scale conflict might bring with it the end of western
civilization; a view propagated by Oswald Spengler. Before 1914, however, Haushofer was
influenced by the social-Darwinist trends of the time and in his promotion of Weltpolitik and
German expansion he envisaged at some point a European conflict from which Germany could
territorially gain. Bruno Hipler links these ideas with Haushofer's racial imperialism of the late
1930s, forgetting that during the republican era he had promoted traditional, conservative Great
Power aims and defined Lebensraum in terms of spheres of influence and a nation's ability to make
use of its share of the world's materials and resources.

In 1913, with his publication of Dai Nihon, Haushofer's views unveil him in his social-Darwinist
phase of publicly promoting territorial expansion. This, too, it must be stressed, was fostered in the
spirit of Great Power tradition advancing the cause of the Hohenzollern dynasty, its status and its
symbolic hold over the German peoples. He was a cultural imperialist, advocating the promotion of
a wide German cultural realm from the Baltic to Adriatic. It is significant that Haushofer in his
pre1914 writings thought in terms of a German North-to-South dominance, symbolized by
Germany's relationship to the Dual Monarchy. He saw the cause of the Central Powers as a cultural
and economic one with German hegemony being clearly established in East-Central Europe.
Russia he perceived in a state of decline as a result of her losing the Russo-Japanese War of
1904/05 and because of the outbreak of social and economic turmoil culminating in the 'Dress
rehearsal' for Revolution. His view about Russia were based on a superficial understanding of
political events and not through an understanding that Russia was in as state of social and
economic transformation, which although bringing about the future Russian Revolution of 1917-
1921, would advance and not undermine her World Power ambitions.[113]

Curiously, Haushofer's understanding of Russia resembled that of revolutionary Marxism, which

perceived Russia as a backward-looking peasant feudal society ruled by the aristocratic elite. The
process of economic development, railways, the creation of new metallurgical industries and a
growth in engineering led to the growth of new urban centers around the principal cities, St.
Petersburg and Moscow and to the creation of a new urban proletariat. The peasantry, freed from
serfdom under Czar Alexander II in 1861, had the right to migrate and sever their previous life-long
servitude to a noble lord. The process of change in the countryside undermined the traditional
peasant commune, intellectuals from the city in the spirit of the Narodniki students of the early
Nineteenth Century attempted to educate the peasants in modern methods of farming in an attempt
to contribute to a new interpretation of Russian rural life and to stem the drift of youth away from
the land; a vision that wasn't achieved as more young hopefuls emigrated to Russia's cities and
contributed to the expansion of her proletariat. Haushofer, just like Karl Marx, got his view of
developing Russia entirely wrong. She was a growing colossus, waiting to be reckoned with.[114]

In 1904 Japan launched a surprise military attack against the Russian Pacific Fleet in Port Arthur on
the Russian controlled Manchurian coast. The victory was followed by the destruction of the
Russian Baltic fleet at “The Battle of Tishuma Straits.” On land the Czar's army clashed with the
Japanese at “The Battle of Mukden” in Manchuria, which ended in the defeat of the Russians.
These defeats represented a temporary set back for the Russian monarchy, but viewed against the
nation's rapid recovery and extraordinary economic expansion between 1906 and 1914, they were
not significantly catastrophic enough to be interpreted as signs of Russia's demise. Haushofer,
however, did regard these defeats, as did the sensational phenomena of war journalism, as overly
significant and this influenced his thesis in the writing up of Dai Nihon. He portrayed Russia in
decline and Japan in the ascendancy, seeing in the later an idealized western model of economic

110
development and military potential. The fact that Japan suffered under growing political strains
between her monarchy, the government and her military leaders – strains that were to lead to
military dictatorship from the late 1920s onwards – were overlooked. The Japanese military cast
system promoted a racial variant of European social-Darwinism, proclaiming themselves as the
Orient's future dominant race; an attitude that was to lead to a show-down with the principal
western powers, including America.[115]

It is curious that the German General Staff understood the world strategic situation much better than
Haushofer did by refusing to underestimate Russia. Indeed if Germany had been thinking of a
preventive war against Russia during the pre1914 era then 1904/05 at a time of political weakness
and military defeat would have been an appropriate time, but the German generals hadn't thought
like this. If anything, they thought traditionally conservative and wanted to resume Bismarck's
foreign policy of the 1870s and 1880s with a resurrection of the Dreikaiserbund between the three
emperors of Germany, Austria and Russia. Kaiser Wilhelm II was also related to Czar Nicholas II,
his cousin and this royal bond was seen as significant by conservative traditionalists and
nationalists. In advocating German territorial expansion at the expense of Russia, Haushofer was
advocating political heresy. His work being printed in the year before the outbreak of the war may
be seen not as an example of aggressive social-Darwinist imperialism, but as part of the expressive
prewar cultural pessimism that in pre1914 society saw war as an inevitable destructive factor; a
view encouraged in the best-seller of the time, The Coming War (1913) by the attention-seeking
unemployed former general, Bernardini.[116]

Haushofer was influenced by his ideas by the strategic considerations of the relatively new
discipline of Geopolitics, introduced to Germany by Friedrich Ratzel, a traditionalist who didn't
advocate social-Darwinist racial expansion. The German traditionalist view among conservatives
was more interested in concerted efforts to consolidate centralized state power, for they saw the
nation's 'life force' being conducted by the state and not, as revolutionary volkish-nationalists
proposed through the racial expression of the people. The state was seen by Ratzel as the upholder
of power, law and morality and had the 'right' in terms of the Hegelian Law to fix its frontiers
according to the scope of its nationalist and commercial interests. He didn't see the frontiers of the
nation in terms of an expression of an expanding racial community, which was the volkish-
nationalist view and one to be adopted by the Nazis. Hipler sees continuity in German Thought
from volkish-nationalism via Haushofer's Pan-German ideas through to the idea of an expansive
Nazi racial community [the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft]; a continuity with which he also
links Haushofer to Hess.

19th Century Geopolitics focuses on the Hegelian conception of state power representing the
nation's community and sees the expression of foreign policy in terms of specific spheres of
interest. This view was first espoused by the founder of Geopolitics, the British academic, Sir
Halford J. Makinder. Friedrich Ratzel emulated his ideas, first publishing them in 1897.[117]
Ratzel expressed the view that the state had to expand at the expense of neighboring powers for the
sake of unifying the ethnic community. There is a distinct difference between his view of merging
state power with that of the ethnic community and that of racial expansion and social-Darwinism.
Ratzel stood for a consolidation of Bismarck's notion of a Großdeutsches Reich. The Nazi variant
of the same idea, however, advocated racial social-Darwinist expansion to include the racial
domination of other peoples, especially the Czechs and Poles. Ratzel by contrast is rooted to
traditional Great Power concepts of state and power. They do not belong to the 20th Century age of
revolutionary nihilism and in the dynamic of the racial community prevailing over the state. To
Ratzel the state defined and guided German national consciousness. Under the NSDAP it was in
accordance with Hess' idea of racial utopia, the racial community that was to be the 'life force' of

111
the nation and prevail over the state, seen as a supportive and protective outer shell for that
community.

When Ratzel writes, “Der Staat kann ohne Schwächung seiner selbst keinen zweiten oder dritten
auf seinem Boden dulden,”[118] his views were misconstrued by Hess' Rassenpolitisches Amt as an
example of the racial community finding dominant expression over other peoples. In actual fact
Ratzel was arguing that the German state would not tolerate any interference in or transgression of
its political sovereignty, a view re-expressed by Hess' lawyer in 1945/46. Dr. Seidl, like other
Germans who saw their aims as conservative and traditional accepted Lebensraum, too, but as a
concept of dominance over spheres of interest and not as a racial expression of social-Darwinism.
Haushofer's views were exactly the same, distancing himself from racial imperialism and
entrenching themselves in traditional orthodoxy for a greater part of his career between 1919 and
1934. This period provides a clear and distinctive gap between his pre1914 social-Darwinism and
his racial imperialism of the late 1930s. He is a contradictory figure of no fixed beliefs, but should
be seen as he liked to see the study of Geopolitics as a constantly interchanging discipline measured
by altering circumstances in the ever changing political-geographical landscape of the world. He
was in essence no advocate of a fixed-obsessed racial imperialism as written by Hitler in Mein
Kampf.[119]

When Haushofer met Hitler in Landsberg prison in 1924 he had already distanced himself from his
hitherto pre1914 social-Darwinist views. There can be no instance in this context of his being
Hitler's ideological teacher because at that stage in his life he fundamentally repudiated the views he
had held in Dai Nihon. Hess claimed in his personal correspondence that Hitler had read the book,
which he had lent him, but Hitler's reading of it is unlikely on account of its unmanageable length
for him due to his inconsistent reading and work habits and preference for easy generalizations.
What more than likely happened is that Hess selected recommended aspects from the book for
Hitler's reading. Still, even this cannot count as continuity between Haushofer, Hess and Hitler
because:

1) Haushofer had embraced the nationalistic-reactionary program of the DVP.

2) Haushofer favored the return of Germany's former overseas colonies.

3) Haushofer worked towards this aim through being a member of the Pan-German League.

4) Haushofer had recognized Geopolitics as a changing discipline with no fixed goal posts.

5) Haushofer had 'progressed' from his previously held views in Dai Nihon.

The above changes in Haushofer's personality and views must count as the deciding factor against
there having been any continuity in social-Darwinist thinking in Haushofer's ideas. He was
therefore in this context not Hitler's ideological teacher, but a traditional conservative closer to
Hegel and Ratzel in terms of the concentration of power in the hands of the state (not a party or a
movement) and represented the upholding of aristocratic-reactionary values more akin to the 'World
View' of the former Wilhelmine elites than to the 'World View' of either Hess or Hitler.[120]

Hitler based his 'Jewish-Bolshevism' against the Soviet State on the ideological assumptions of
Alfred Rosenberg. Hitler didn't admit to this, but Rosenberg in a revealing document to Hess
entitled Meine Erste Begegnung mit dem Fuhrer offers personal reflections of his first impressions
of Hitler in 1919 and how he encouraged in him an interpretation of History through clashing

112
civilizations and nations. The document doesn't claim that Rosenberg is Hitler's ideological
teacher;[121] a status that can't be attributed to any one person as Hipler attempts through his
jockeying of Haushofer into the revered teaching position. [122] However, it would more
appropriate just to acknowledge how a set of intellectuals, among whom we may count Eckardt and
Rosenberg as early influences, did contribute to Hitler's 'World View' in the same way Hess was to
contribute to Hitler's vision for the Aryan racial community. In contrast to all this Haushofer's ideas
remain traditional and conservative, although maturing to the degree that after the First World War
he recognized the quality of statesmanship as the essential quality for a head of state figure.
Haushofer's figure was a kind of Ersatzkaiser. He recognized qualities of statesmanship in the DVP
politician and German Foreign Minister (1924-29), Gustav Stresemann and supported the
DVP/DNVP bürgerlich-Right block that stood behind the legendary figure of Hindenburg. In his
Japan baut sein Reich he eulogizes the model of Japan for Germany as one for statesmanship and
strategy within the competing field of global world powers, without fully understanding the
conflicting political circumstances within Japan itself that led to her racist military dictatorship in
the late 1920s. Haushofer's misjudgments over Japan ought to be seen against the backdrop of
radical developments in that nation; developments he didn't anticipate.[123]

In Haushofer's view, based on the conversations he had with Hitler in Landsberg prison over the
summer of 1924, Hitler wasn't made of sufficiently appropriate material to fulfill the criteria for
statesmanship. This accounts for his distancing from Hitler, his reinvigoration for the DVP, his
backing of the Ersatzkaiser model and his backing of Stresemann's revisionist foreign policy aims
from 1924 onwards, which culminated with the German diplomatic triumph at Locarno and her
entry into the League of Nations, while the eastern frontier remained kept as an open question.
Stresemann also tirelessly worked for the return of Germany’s pre World War One colonies – an
aim Haushofer encouraged throughout his membership of the Pan-German League. Haushofer was
also to maneuver himself close to Hjamar Schacht in the mid-1930s to advance the aims of the
League, believing as Schacht did that overseas colonies would provide Germany with important
overseas markets. Like the Reich Bank President he envisaged combing this aristocratic-
reactionary 'World View' with his plans for German cultural and economic hegemony in East-
Central Europe.[124] This goes to show how far Haushofer distanced himself during his republican
period from his flawed model of territorial aggrandizement through social-Darwinist imperialism.
Haushofer's support of the German Sudetenland Party in the 1930s reinforced the Pan-German
League's aim of achieving a centralized German state embracing all ethnic Germans under the
principal of national self-determination. This was partly a result of his views coinciding with Hess'
Sudetenland policy under the mantle of a peaceful Europe, even though what Hess was striving for
was the future dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and the creation of a 'racial family of European
nations', which wasn't necessarily against the Slavic peoples as under Hess Sudetendeutsches
Memorandum the Slovaks were to have their own state – in other words their own ultra-nationalist
and racial (that meant Jewish free) state.[125]

In Mein Kampf Hitler writes of racial settlement and conquest as a characteristic of natural law and
social-Darwinism.[126] This was essentially a 19th Century outmoded way of thinking, which
under the NSDAP and modern racial science, received a set of new ideological clothing. Hitler
justified his views, arguing that the German historic mission was to expand to the East, following
the path of the Teutonic Knights. He overlooked the fact that the Teutonic Knights had been
defeated in 1242 by Alexander Nevsky. Such oversights were common in Hitler's understanding of
History despite the fact that he consistently maintained that he was good at this subject.[127] He
argued that over a period of 500 years German settlements in the East had become too spread out,
representing a ‘German Diaspora’.[128] He wanted to redress this balance and achieve his dream
of an eastern racial empire.[129]

113
Karl Haushofer compromised his position and his ideals, deciding to accept the offer in autumn
1933 of a lecturer's post at the Hochschule für Politik. He aimed initially to continue advancing the
cause of his aristocratic-reactionary nationalism and expected great things of his position. This
didn't materialize and the more Haushofer struggled for a representation of his views the more he
compromised himself and acquired the fashionable Aryan views of racial strength determining a
nation's fate. He turned on the progressive views he had had during the republican era and
criticized the modern development of Geopolitics he had encouraged. He drew closer to Hess,
arguing the state was now a living, biologically determined organism, whose borders weren't to be
fashioned through international law but through the dynamic energy of the people. Under this
retrograde step in his career, clearly tarnishing the previous achievements of his academic
reputation, he defined the nation's 'living space' as 'ethnic ground' (“Volksboden”). Alarmingly, he
described an expression of the racial will for living space as “lebendige Raumwille,” which he
argued, reflected in metaphorically racial terms, as an overflowing blood from the racial Aryan
organism flowing over the old 1914 borders (“Grenzdurchbluting).[130]

In the above context Hipler is right to see Haushofer as encouraging the racial-imperialism of the
regime; an interpretation that leads us back to Haushofer's pre-1914 social-Darwinism and the
publication of Dai Nihon. There is a connection between these two periods in Haushofer's
development, especially with the Dai Nihon model serving his racial imperialism of the 1930s.
However, there are undercurrents of thought that have to be addressed, namely that, as we have
seen, Dai Nihon was a flawed thesis based on Russia's weakness and not in recognition of her
'strengths' through economic and social transformation. Importantly, Haushofer recognized these
failings and in his Japan baut sein Reich argues how the emerging nation requires statesmanship
and the pursuit of traditional, pragmatic aims to achieve its place in the world.[131] The era of the
republic marks Haushofer down as someone struggling to reaffirm Germany's world position
without the risk of another devastating world war, which under the climate of cultural pessimism
was very feared. Haushofer's views on aristocratic-reactionary nationalism and his embracing of
traditional conservative aims through the DVP policy of revision intercede between the two poles of
pre1914 social-Darwinism and the post-1933/34 racial imperialism in his thinking. He is a
controversial and contradictory figure, but with his true essence and his most rational and pragmatic
agenda being represented during the days of the republic; an aspect of interpretation that doesn't fit
in with Hipler's overview,[132] seeing Haushofer as one-tracked, doggedly imperialist and
determined to forge his academic and political fame as Hitler's ideological teacher.

One other aspect dents Hipler's straight forward interpretation, namely that evidence upholds
Haushofer's initial determination under the banner of the 'National Revolution' to pursue his
aristocratic-reactionary nationalism and revisionist goals. Only gradually and then more radically
did he fall victim to the Nazi allure of racial strength and become influenced by this notion in his
ideological writings of the late 1930s. With his new voice he reinforces racial stereotypes and
brought severe accusations against him in 1945/46. Typical of some of his views under his Nazi
masters is the following extract, in which he claims “(...) man (wird) wohl oder übel manche
überseeische Rassenzusammensetzungs- und Wanderfragen mit anderen Augen im Lichte der
kunftigen Panideen sehen und sich sagen müssen: absolute Ausschließlichkeit verurteilt zum
Rassentod durch Inzucht und schliesst von weiten Erdenraumen auf die Dauer aus.”[133]

Stefan Zweig [1881-1942], writing from the perspective of political exile in South America, wrote a
sympathetic account of Haushofer as the misguided reactionary who turned to embrace the racial
imperialism of the regime. He doesn't exaggerate Haushofer's direct radicalism of the 1930s, but
sees his views as contributing to the aggressiveness of German Nationalism. He regards him as not
having pursued an overly ideological role as teacher and a master of Hitler's war plans, as the

114
Americans did in 1945/46, but he does see his aristocratic-nationalism and his support of the Pan-
German League as examples of aggressiveness and misguidance with a view to impose his 'World
View' on the regime. Trying to place the real Haushofer amidst stereotypical portrayals, Zweig
asserts:

“Ich sehe in ihm keineswegs wie die fingerfertigen Journalisten von heute eine dämonische 'graue
Eminenz,' die im Hintergrunde versteckt, die gefährlichsten Pläne ausheckt (...), aber seine Theorien
waren, die mehr als Hitlers rabiateste Berater die aggressive Politik des Nationalismus unbewusst
oder bewusst aus dem eng Nationalen ins Universale betrieben, unterliegt keinem Zweifel.” [134]

However, contrary to Zweig's impression Haushofer was never a chief advisor in the regime, but in
fact for much of his Nazi career a lowly paid lecturer. The fact that his salary wasn't substantially
increased in keeping with his alleged influential status, reveals how the NSDAP was neither willing
to upgrade his position nor take him too seriously. Haushofer consistently struggled to represent his
case. The President of the Hochschule für Politik, Prof. Paul Meier-Benneckenstein had to
courteously ask Goebbels at the Propaganda Ministry for a raise in his salary, which was eventually
adjusted. Haushofer's financial income was stated as follows: “Sein {Haushofer's} bisher
bezogenes Gehalt von monatlich RM 400, -- steht in keinem Verhältnis zu seinen Arbeiten. Ich
stelle daher den Antrag, Herrn Dr. Haushofer ab 1. Dezember 1938 ein Gehalt von monatlich brutto
RM 700. -- auszahlen zu dürfen.”[135] That Haushofer had to go begging in such a way doesn't
reflect a warm reciprocity between himself and the Nazis. The regime made it clear he was just an
ordinary lecturer.

Haushofer's son, Albrecht, encapsulates the full tragedy of his father through his poems, Die Moabit
Sonate, written while awaiting the death sentence in the aftermath of the failed July Plot in 1944.
Albrecht Haushofer was executed on a charge of high treason decreed by the Nazi People's Court.
One of his poems laments over his father [136]:

“Der Vater

(...) lag einmal in seines Willens Kraft,

den Dämon heimzustoßen in die Haft,

mein Vater hat das Siegel aufgebrochen,

den Hauch des Bösen hat er nicht gesehen,

den Dämon ließ er in die Welt entwehn.“

Albrecht attributes his father's fall from grace to his academic ego. Haushofer wasn't the only
figure to suffer in this way. Grüdgens [1899-1963], the actor, compromised himself when agreeing
to take over the German National Theater, knowing former Jewish colleagues and friends had been
forced into exile. The conductor Furtwängler [1886-1954] similarly accepted the post of managing
the German Philharmonic Orchestra after Jewish musicians were forced to leave. The allure of
satisfying careers, however, doesn't quite fit Haushofer's context on account of low pay and
questioning of his status, clearly suggesting he was less influential than Hipler thinks.

115
3.4 Hitler under Scrutiny

Hitler sees History as the inexorable force driving man onto new heights, enabling him to conquer
racially according to the laws of nature. He resembles Spengler's epochal interpretation of History,
but embellishes it ideologically. He identifies in contrast Marxism and socialism as the new
scourge of the times, arguing these bring dissension among the peoples under the internationalist
world Jewish conspiracy.[137] His racial view is clearly expressed at the Reichsparteitag on
3rd September, 1933, in which he states the difference between the races and justifies his reasons
for Aryan dominance over the 'lesser peoples', telling his audience, “Die Spanne, die zwischen dem
nierdersten, noch sogenannten Menschen und unseren höchsten Rassen liegt, is größer als die
zwischen dem tiefsten Menschen und dem höchstn Affen.”[138] His words are an attempt to sound
intellectual, emphasizing that the differences between man override those between man and nature.
Having acquired the recipe for his social-Darwinist racialism Hitler is an inadequate gourmet trying
to delight in the ideas of racial supremacy.

Hitler didn't imitate Haushofer's views on Lebensraum in Mein Kampf because he didn't understand
them intellectually. The NSDAP leader presented instead his own simplified version of a racial-
biological conception of Lebensraum, influenced under Rosenberg's 'Jewish-Bolshevism'
argument. Mein Kampf is a reflection of kitsch ideas in awkward language. Hitler tries to adopt the
mantle of someone who is erudite, but he neither understands the world nor the better nature of
people. In effect he repeats a negative social-Darwinist interpretation of human development. His
one publicly accepted model of influence happens to stem from his pre1914 era when he admired
Karl Leugner, the Mayor of Vienna.[139] He acknowledges Leugner's contribution to the building
of a national community through municipal housing projects and in his view 'interesting'
architecture. Hitler would immaturely accept one's views if the person understood architecture.
Only three friends understood him in this way: August Kubizek during the pre1914 days, Hess in
Landsberg prison and after 1934 Speer, his personal architect and preferred heir-apparent.[140]

Hess reveals the extent of his collaboration with Hitler over Mein Kampf in a letter to his father. He
explains how each morning after having made Hitler a cup of tea he would engage in reading and
editing the manuscript of Hitler's previous night's work on his typewriter as “Arbeiter der
Stirn.”[141] He implies by use of this phrase how in an unofficial capacity he has become Hitler's
personal secretary. He values himself fully engaged in intellectual work, as he had previously
hoped to be in his earlier letter to his mother at the beginning of his prison sentence. As if to
suggest the ferment periods of intellectual concentration he tells his father how between each
morning before breakfast, between 5 am and 7.30 am, he goes through the typed up pages of
Hitler's scrawling, trying to lend them content and cohesion. After breakfast he assumes the role of
the “Arbeiter der Faust,”[142] implying his exertions at physical activity together with Hitler in the
prison yard.

The date of Hess' letter to his father is 17th August, 1925, again revealing how critical the
17th August was in Hess' life. On this day in 1914 Fate had played a part in his personal fortunes
as his young mind decided to reject his father's advice, leaving the Kaiser's prestigious heavy
cavalry regiment for the infantry.[143] That decision affected the course of his military life during
the First World War, which ended unsatisfied and unromantic. This shaped Hess' radical anti-
Wilhelmine attitude, driving him towards radicalism, the Freikorps and the NSDAP. His letter of
17th August, 1925, affects his future life even more profoundly for he reveals his decision to
commit himself to Hitler. Why did Hess invest himself in this man, when he still had the
opportunity of joining his father in Egypt?

116
Fritz Hess' younger son Alfred accompanied him to Egypt for the sake of reestablishing the family
business. It had been Fritz Hess' dream to see his eldest complete his banking apprenticeship and
join him in a normal bürgerlich life. Yet it would be an over simplification to think that such a life
was still possible because the Zeitgeist of cultural pessimism had so infected the German political
and cultural landscape that even Fritz Hess broke with his former staunch Wilhelmine views,
expressing his latent anti-Semitism in support of his eldest son's radical political career. Hess gives
his father the impression of having given up on conventional life and comforts for a road of political
martyrdom alongside Hitler. He tells his father how his prison sentence is to be reviewed and
doesn't expect to be released until 1st October, 1925. He expresses himself as a political soldier,
stating, “Mein Hinausmarschieren wird sich voraussichtlich bis zum 1. Oktober verzögern.”

Hess lectures his father. He says he will not tell him his innermost thoughts regarding justice and
personal retribution – probably because these are unclear to himself – but he does boast of a key
slogan he has learned from his comrades. He writes: “Aber dem bekannten Satz, den man auch
meinen Kameraden entgegenhielt: 'Es lebe das Recht – und wenn die Welt darüber zugrundegeht.”
His attitude is offhand and rebellious. He expresses a hard political rhetoric and attacks the Reich
President, Friedrich Ebert [1871-1925]. The President had become involved in a court case against
a nationalist journalist in Magdeburg, who had accused him of having participated in worker
munitions strikes during January, 1918. The bürgerlich-Right wanted to bring his presidency to an
end through their press and court campaign. The case was dismissed unsatisfactory, as it
was acknowledged that Ebert's part in the strikes had served nationalist motives. The vindictiveness
expressed against him by the nationalist-bürgerlich press contributed to his poor physical health,
culminating in a severe case of untreated appendicitis that ended in his death. As was towards the
misfortune of other public figures such as Walther Rathenau [1867-1922], Hess is merciless in his
condemnation, writing: “Und manchmal muss ich doch daran denken, dass ein Mann, der
nachgewiesenermaßen in den kritischsten Augenblicken seines Landes Munitionsstreiks
organisierte und sich an einem Sturz beteiligte, nicht nur nicht hinter Schloss und Riegel sitzt,
sondern im Gegenteil auf einem Präsidentenstuhl thront und Kriegsdenkmäler einweiht für die
Gefallenen, unter denen sich nicht wenige Gefallene befinden, die in Folge Munitionsmangels ihr
Leben ließen.”[144]

Hess' condemnation of the Reich President legitimizes Hitler's own claim to nationalist leadership.
He inverts truth and justice, portraying Ebert and the Reich government as betrayers of the
nationalist idea. He defends Hitler as the bearer of truth and justice and demolishes what he sees as
the lies of the SPD and republican press. He acknowledges how Hitler had been forced himself to
stand down momentarily as NSDAP leader while in Landsberg prison. He informs his father, “Die
Nachricht, die Du gelesen hast, Hitler habe die Leitung niedergelegt, stimmt.” Yet this isn't
presented as a shocking defeat! In fact Hess sees it as a cause for celebration, recognizing Hitler's
gambit, which is to convince his bickering supporters how they really need him. Hess recognizes,
furthermore, how certain advantages lay with Hitler. As the movement outside disintegrates amidst
squabbles, Hitler is able to improve his claims as an author in a detached pseudo-intellectual display
of superiority. News of his book promotes his reputation while Hess assumes that what has been
written will shock the movement into unity, asserting the view: “Er (Hitler) zeigt der Gesellschaft
draußen, dass sie ohne ihn doch nichts zuwegebringen, dass es nicht so einfach ist, wie sie sich
gedacht haben, die Arbeit zu leisten, die er leistete.”

On completing the first draft of his first volume Hitler is a stronger position to exert his authority
over the squabbling factions of his party. With his confidence buoyant, Hess reveals to his father
the extent of his quasi-religious fervor for Hitler:

117
“Seine Person bleibt über dem kleinlichen Streit. Wenn er wieder draußen ist, wird er dank seiner Autorität
in kurzer Zeit alles wieder in Ordnung haben. Er hat die feste Überzeugung, und ich glaube, er hat recht. –
Außerdem will er ungestört an seinem Buch schreiben können. Dies wird ganz ausgezeichnet. Sein
Erscheinen wird einen schweren Schlag für seine Gegner bedeuten. Er liest mir von Zeit zu Zeit die fertigen
Abschnitte vor. Hitler wird mir nach dem Erscheinen im Herbst einige Exemplare für meine Bekannten in
der Schweiz usw. übergeben. Du bekommst auch ein Stück für Dich und für Verleihung an andere drüben.”
[145]

The tone of the letter contrasts with the one Hess wrote earlier on 29th June, 1925, in which he had
recognized the shortcomings of Hitler's text. Hitler was able to communicate his ideas only when in
a continuous monologue. If Hess had recognized deficiencies in Hitler as an uninspiring author
during his uninspiring readings of his text he describes as “tonlos,” why did Hess in his letter of
August 17th alter his opinion and compliment the work? The reason lies in Hess' change of
optimism. This has nothing to do with Hitler's book and more to do with the news of his
probationary release. He becomes overjoyed because he's able to explain to his father how his
mutual respect for Karl Haushofer hasn't diminished. With Hitler engaged in the intellectual task of
authorship, Hess feels it an appropriate time for himself to intellectually impress Haushofer.

Despite their political differences Hess is willing to keep up his personal relationship to Haushofer,
looking up towards him as a surrogate father primarily because he needs the emotional reassurance
for his political work, which is an aspect lacking in his relationship to both Hitler and his father,
who each play out stereotypical roles his spirit can't always endure: Hitler as the iron-willed man of
destiny and his father as the archetypal businessman. Hess writes to Haushofer comfortingly , “Die
Nachricht, dass meine Bewährungs Frist aufgehoben sei, stand etwa 14 Tage früher in der
Frankfurter Zeitung, als es sonst ein Mensch erfuhr, einschließlich meiner Wenigkeit selbst.”[146]
He is pleased to read of himself in Der Frankfurter Allgemeine, the most respected German paper,
revealing the extent to which subconsciously – underneath his radicalism – he is still searching for
bürgerlich respectability. In regard to Haushofer's moral support, he adds, “General Haushofer
wurde sogar noch 10 Tage nach der Veröffentlichung in dem Frankfurter Blatt auf dem
Justizministerium versichert, dass dort von einer Aufhebung nichts bekannt sei!”[147] This shows
that Haushofer cares and it is important to recognize the emotional bond between Hess and
Haushofer despite the disagreements in the political field. Haushofer gives clear assurances to
Hess, writing the future decision of the Bavarian Justice Ministry will undoubtedly favor him and
reassures him that no danger faces his impending release, writing, “Wenn mich nicht das halbe
Justizministerium angelogen hat, besteht keinerlei Gefahr in dieser Richtung.” With good humor
Hess replies: “Ein paar Tage darauf hatte ich die gegenteilige Nachricht in Händen. Der
Gerichtsbeschluß war etwa 3 Wochen früher datiert.”[148] All this jocularity suggests that Hess'
imprisonment hadn't harmed him in any way, despite the fact that in being together with Hitler he
had been living in a fool's paradise.

A week later, a little reality seeps into Hess as he tells Ilse, “Neulich bin ich, wie schon öfters, mit
Kriebel u. Weber aneinandergeraten über den Punkt meiner Stellung zur protestantischen Kirche.”
[149] This wasn't the first time that he felt aggrieved by the two leaders of Die Vaterländische
Verbände. They had snared him over a precise intellectual definition of Lebensraum in the prison
garden. Suddenly he felt embroiled in religious matters. He argued the Prussian-Protestant ethics
supporting the pillars of the Evangelical Church and Kaiser had collapsed morally and spiritually in
November, 1918. Since then, he claimed, he had been searching for a new belief in God, later
defined through the NSDAP Deutsche Christen with whom, as did his twenty year old sister,
Gretel, after returning to Germany to work for a book-binding firm, he found an ideological
“Gottglauben.” He imitated Hitler's accusation of duplicity against the Christian Church,
expressing in his book his own semi-educated religious views. On this point Hess did appear

118
helpful because he encouraged Hitler in his self-projection as a Messiah-like figure. Writing about
this to Ilse, he reveals, “Im Grunde ist der Tribun tief religiös veranlagt. In seiner Gendenkrede am
2. August {1924} sagt er, nur wer sich selbst nicht aufgebe, könne damit rechnen, dass Gott ihm
beistehe.”[150]

The above reveals in actual fact not Hitler's sense of religious belief in a conventional sense, but
reveals instead his spiritual affinity with the dead of the First World War. In effect this is another
example of how the impact of the Zeitgeist shaped Hitler's thinking, because the cultural pessimism
prevalent in Germany reviewed the war as a tragic experience in national martyrdom. This pseudo-
religious theme obsessed post-1918 war literature.[151] Hitler may not have read any of it, but he
was susceptible to its message. Indirectly, without meaning to, Die Vaterländische Verbände
leaders, Lieutenant Kriebel and Dr. Weber contributed to Hitler's sense of religiosity and spiritual
affinity with the nation's war dead through their recounting of their war reminiscences on the tenth
anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War in Hitler's prison cell. Hitler took his quasi-
religiosity one step further when he would celebrate the fallen before the Feldherrnhalle on
9th November, 1923, thus combining the movement's own dead with the same ritualized status of
the war dead.

Through this sense of national martyrdom and of the party's fallen, Hitler benefited in shaping his
quasi-religious personality cult with Hess' undivided attention. Hitler's sombre actions of ritual
mourning brought on a natural spiritual affinity with war remembrance. Hess benefited from this,
too, as the magnitude of the lost war and its sense of martyrdom was something he along with Hitler
felt imbued with. If one looks for the cause of Hitler’s inspiration in writing his book then one sees
how it evolves out of the Zeitgeist. It is important to acknowledge the effects of national
martyrdom and the landscape of cultural pessimism as two important aspects of the Zeitgeist that
shaped both Hitler’s and Hess' thinking. It is inappropriate to point to a single individual or a set of
personalities, whether Hess, Haushofer or Eckart and Rosenberg and argue that here we find Hitler's
ideological teacher. He was in essence a man shaped by the influence and conditions of the times,
as to an extent the other men were – as products of their epoch.

In analyzing Hitler's attitudes towards propaganda one detects a Machiavellian trait characterizing
his political egoism. His propaganda is dark and manipulative bereft of idealism. This
distinguishes him greatly from Hess, who wished to remain rooted to his National Socialist idealism
he had first experienced in summer 1920. As Gottfried Feder's influence upon him dissipated, Hess
felt that a darker side to nationalist revolutionary politics was indeed permissible if the route to
political power was assured. For that reason he accepted Hitler's Machiavellian approach to mass
mobilization. Hitler had written in Mein Kampf:

“(...) volkstümlich zu sein und ihr geistiges Niveau einzustellen nach der Aufnahmefähigkeit des
Beschränktesten unter denen, an die sie sich zu richten gedenkt. (...) Die Aufnahmefähigkeit der großen
Masse ist nur sehr beschränkt, das Verständnis klein, dafür jedoch die Vergesslichkeit groß. Aus diesen
Tatsachen heraus hat sich jede wirkungsvolle Propaganda auf nur sehr wenige Punkte zu beschränken und
diese schlagwortartig solange zu verwerten, bis auch bestimmt der Letzte unter einem solchen Worte das
Gewollte sich vorzustellen vermag.” [152]

Hitler expresses a fondness for catchy slogans. This in turn was to have an effect on Hess, who in
pursuit of the Hitler cult, would think of catchy slogans himself to help bond the nation around
Hitler's person. The most successful slogan that Hess came up with binding the political will of the
masses to Hitler's person was, “Der Fuhrer hat immer Rechts.”[153]

119
Despite the influence Hitler's propaganda had on him Hess still retained a strong aspect of his
original idealism. He believed the masses emanated a shining light of idealism, truth and justice of
their own and that Hitler had to make personal sacrifices in order to connect with these qualities. In
this way he believed first and foremost in the qualities of the people and of the Fatherland. He
argued that Hitler had to give something of himself in order to nourish the masses. This is what he
believed when he exclaims in Leni Riefenstahl's film, Der Triumph des Willens: “Hitler ist, was
aber Deutschland ist.”[154] Nation and the leader thus become imbued with a sense of mystical
and quasi-religious unity.

Whereas Haushofer, like the writer Hans Grimm,[155] wished to see a connecting bridge between
the elite and the masses, Hess argued for the social unification of all social classes around Hitler.
What he advocated was something different to Haushofer's aristocratic-reactionary views. What he
wished to see wasn't the former Wilhelmine elites retaining their privileged positions. Haushofer
argued one needed their professional expertise and moral decency to guide the nation.[156] Hess
believed such values as corrupt. What he desired was for the ruling elites to belittle themselves and
reach out in their thinking to the masses as equals.[157] In Hess' vision of the future the national
community was to take on real effect. Aristocrats would be transformed supportive of peasants,
who themselves would break free from petty backwardness and embrace modernizing trends. The
workers, too, would be broken free from their shackles in this “perfect harmony” Hess wanted for
the nation.[158]

Hess espouses the ideal of the national community – the future NS-Volksgemeinschaft – and argues
in favor of a genuine leader who can unite people across social-class division. In regard to his own
intermediary role Hess perverts the political suggestions Haushofer had cut out for him. Haushofer
had tried to act as an intellectual mentor for Hess – and not just as a fatherly figure – but this
attempt failed because Hess rejected his aristocratic-reactionary nationalism. Instead Hess saw
himself in a new light as a self-styled educator of the masses, writing: “Dank meines Studiums ich
eigne mich als Bindeglied zwischen der Massenbewegung und der Schicht der Gebildeten.”[159]
Hess had felt he had had to carry the onus of educating the masses through his self-styled
martyrdom. He had in contrast to Hitler written idealistically about the working-class, as illustrated
by the following: “Die nationalsozialistische Arbeiter-Partei hat seit ihrer Grundung bewiesen, das
sie wirklich imstand ist, zu einen, statt noch weitere Gegensätze hervorzurufen.”[160] His
propaganda stands “sincere” when compared to Hitler's method of manipulation.

Hess expresses a sense of political virtue, writing, “Und nur so kann man sich mit einer weiteren
Partei einverstanden erklären, während wir deren Übergenug haben. Es ist zu hoffen, dass diese mit
der Zeit andere in sich aufnehmen wird. Denn tatsächlich gehören der Deutschen Arbeiterpartei
ehemalige Mitglieder aller übrigen Parteien von rechts bis ganz links an.”[161] He sees propaganda
in terms of the mass mobilization of all social-classes with the workers as the vanguard of the
movement. His idealistic impressions for a broad ranging appeal encouraged him to even write
early at the beginning of his career, with an air of youthful optimism: “Es sind ehemalige
Kommunisten und USPD Leute dabei, Idealisten, die vom Internationalen gründlich geheilt sind
und sich wieder dem Nationalen zuwenden.”[162] His belief in the “nationalist community” was
such that he thought the NSDAP capable of transcending ideological boundaries, even over towards
former Communists.

3.5 The Hitler-Myth

Rudolf Hess shrouded Hitler's character in mystery so that others would think of the “authenticity”
of their leader's “greatness.” Hess used the title “der Tribun” for Hitler whenever referring to him

120
privately, so as to appear on a level of intimacy. This personal name reflected an informality, which
contrasted with the official reverence others showed Hitler, such as Hermann Esser, who had
incidentally first coined the term “Fuhrer” at a party assembly in the Zirkus Krone in Munich in
1921.[163] Hess contributes to Hitler's aura of infallibility by presenting the image of a man
integrated into the nation's national consciousness – not as Hindenburg was through deed and
service in war, but as a populist politician who had risen out of the masses. This, however,
shrouded the truth of Hitler's bürgerlich and spoiled upbringing in Brannau – the provincial town of
his birth – and of Linz, where his aunts had paid for his failed adolescence at high school.[164] His
roaming in prewar Vienna was equally funded by his reasonably wealthy relatives, even though his
father, a former customs official at Passau died without leaving behind a financial legacy.[165]

At the heart of the 'Hitler-Myth' lies the “barstardization” of German high-culture and its perversion
of German Romanticism. One sees how Mein Kampf abuses the romanticist spirit through hardened
phraseology about former past German glories. Hitler uses the language of emotional manipulation,
but only when appropriate because the mainstay of his book detaches the reader through his austere
monolithic judgments on racial destiny, Lebensraum and German greatness. Selected extracts
could therefore appear “intellectual” and “profound” when removed from their awkward context.
The head of the NSDAP publishing house, Max Amann [1891-1957], learned quickly how a much
improved version of Mein Kampf in Bible black format and with a name index and theme index
could give the work an exterior intellectual appearance. Hence, Hitler could have extracts from the
book published which alluded to profundity.[166]

As Hitler's Private Secretary Hess' task was to help Hitler give his book a literary edge, but this
proved too overwhelming so that it was passed on to Amann. Hess excused the awkwardness of
Hitler's manuscript by suggesting the author had been under rigorous pressure and had had his ideas
squeezed into an ill-fitting time slot. If Hitler's imprisonment had been any longer there is no
indication that this would have enabled him to improve his written style. He was flawed from the
outset on account of his lack of a full education and because of his indolence. Hess overlooks this
and excuses his character flaws. He defends Hitler's stylistic errors too kindly. Hess, an educated
son of the Bildungsbürgertum, could see the shoddiness of uncoordinated ideas thrown together.
Yet he chooses to defend the man he had come to love and admire. To his parents he writes:

“(...) Ich (will) doch möglichst hierbleiben (München), um den Druck des zweiten Bandes zu überwachen,
nochmals die Druckbogen durchzukorrigieren, vor allem auch noch kleine stilistische Korrekturen
anzubringen, die man erst sieht, wenn die Sache gesetzt ist, da ja leider das Manuskript nicht zweimal
geschrieben wurde, wie sich's gehört. Die Zeit war zu knapp. Außerdem will ich diesmal die
Seitenüberschriften machen (...).” [167]

Hess never told Hitler personally that his text had been weak, but he realized that without stylistic
improvements and the book's name and theme index it would have been a source of embarrassment
in the hands of sophisticated, intellectual enemies.

Avoiding challenges not on his terms became part of Hitler's psychological defensive strategy. He
preferred delays between speeches so that he could create an air of expectation among his
admirers.[168] In this way the mystique around his persona was strengthened. The public bans
used against him after the first year of his release from Landsberg prison he used to his advantage.
Bans had been introduced for fear that he would incite another putsch. To overcome the ban of the
Bavarian Minister-President, Joseph Held , Hitler went to see the minister in person in February
1925. The meeting proved successful because it ended with Hitler being granted permission to
speak, which he quickly did at a meeting in Bamberg to achieve party unity.[169] On the evening
of the speech the NSDAP leader so impressed Joseph Goebbels that he was able to tear him away

121
from the Strasser wing of the movement.[170] The Strassers, Otto [1897-1974] and Gregor [1892-
1934], had built up an independent party network in Germany's northern towns and cities. They
didn't recognize the authority of party HQ in Munich and were a thorn in Hitler's side.[171]

The significance of Hitler's ability to speak is captured by Hess in a letter to his parents, which he
wrote on 2nd March, 1925. He writes of a party gathering in Munich. The party had seen the birth
of rival factions, Die Deutsch-Völkischen and Die Nationalsozialisten, which had formed together
to make Die Nationalsozialistischen Freiheitspartei. Hitler managed through his effective rhetoric
to dispel the fragile unity of these factions and to bring them back under the wing of the NSDAP.
Commenting on this move, Hess writes, “In München ist am Freitag nämlich die
Wiederzusammenführung der beiden feindlichen Brüder gelungen.” He adds, “Am Ende seiner
prachtvollen Rede reichten sich Esser, Büttmann (Völkischer Block usw. die versöhnende hand,
lösten ihre Gruppen auf u. unterstellten sich Hitler bedingungslos.”[172] It was a prerequisite of
Hitler's to demand unconditional loyalty to his person while reshaping the party organization. Hess
understood that the NSDAP was to become Hitler's party. He dedicated himself to Hitler's cult of
personality, determined, however, that Hitler's appearance would be appropriate and tailor made for
the needs of the masses. Hess didn't veer from this personal dictum. Yet as Hess helped to fashion
Hitler's personality and helped to protect his vulnerability and decided to shield the fact that Hitler
wore glasses for reading he began to play a pivotal role in the Hitler image, whereas others such as
Gauleiter Hans Frank, a close associate of Hess' in the 1930s when they approached the ideological
training for young Nazi lawyers together, would reveal himself to be the more sycophantic Nazi
without any part in Hitler's icon-making. He would offer slavish unimaginative reflections over the
NSDAP leader such as when he spoke in terms of Hitler's quasi-volkish and quasi-religious hold
over him: “Er sprach sich alles von der Seele und uns allen aus der Seele.”[173]

One of Hitler's and Hess' first steps together following their release from Landsberg prison was the
purchase of a new car, a brand new 15/70/100 PS- compressor-Mercedes, which could reach a top
speed of 135 km/h. Both men recognized the importance of the car. It would help stimulate
attraction, especially amongst the young in Hitler's personality. The vehicle confirmed Hitler's
status as leader. He was able to buy it on the proceeds from the first popular sales – thanks to Max
Amann's clever advertising – of his book. Hess explains, “Erworben hat ihn Hitler durch einen Teil
des Vorschusses, den er für sein in Druck befindliches Buch bekommen hat.”[174] The Mercedes
was to be used for personal pleasure naturally, but its prime function was propagandistic presenting
a refreshed and more determined Hitler to the public eye. Hess further comments, “Tausende und
tausende drängten sich auf der Straße, die nicht in die Säle kamen, wie überall, wo Hitler jetzt
auftaucht, um zu sprechen. Das Auto wurde bei der Abfahrt so von den Menschenmassen
eingekeilt, dass es lange nur schrittweise vorwärts konnte.”[175] This written description was
testimony to the attractive power of the vehicle and it suited Hitler to present himself in this way.

Hess had a life outside of Hitler's. It would be an oversimplification to argue that he was always in
Hitler's proximity. Hess was in love and had his relationship to Ilse. He wrote to her lovingly while
away on party business in Berlin, “Ach, wie gern würde ich mit Ihr hier durch die Straßen gehen –
Arm in Arm – und mir von Ihr die Weltstadt zeigen lassen.” Ilse, who had previously left the city
for personal reasons, knew Berlin very well. Hess yearned for the shared experience. However, he
was beginning to have to realize that his personal life outside of Hitler's and the movement was
being inextricably drawn closer. Most of Hess' letters to Ilse endorse his support and love for
Hitler. He also expresses Hitler's love for culture. To what extent Hitler enjoyed anything is
unknown, for he would always characterize himself in the image of the great leader. Hess in
contrast enjoyed the theater as he had always done since having watched Friedrich Schiller's Maria
Stuart at the age of fifteen.[176]

122
In March, 1925, Hess and Hitler visited Berlin together and stayed as a guest of Frau Bechstein's,
who owned an apartment in Johannesstrasse, just off Friedrichstrasse. Hess appears to have
indulged in the bürgerlich comforts of the Bechsteins. Not being far from the city center, museums
and the opera Hess felt that he and his “Tribun” would enjoy evening entertainment. They began to
cement their bond to one another. This was the closest thing that Hitler experienced in terms of
personal friendship until meeting Albert Speer. Enjoying the bürgerlich perspective on life, Hess
remarks upon the décor of the Bechstein home, “Außerlich ist das Haus ganz unscheinbar. Innen
dagegen riesige u. kleinere repräsentative Räume, kostbare Teppiche, alte Originale an den
Wänden. Überall gute Geschmack.” Hess justifies his cultural outings with Hitler as he believes
they will have a greater appreciation of how to build monumentally for the future. In the 1920s
Hitler shared his personal architectural vision with Hess. They visited museums together.
Interestingly, Hitler followed Hess' choice of viewing exhibits of Egyptology. They saw the
sarcophagus of Armenophobis IV and of his queen. It must have at some point occurred in the
subconsciousness of both men that they were seeing into the land of Pharaoh and the origins of the
Jewish exodus. Hitler was quite adamant in his own interpretations of ancient history that the
ancient Egyptians had been a great people undermined from within by the parasitic Jew.

On 26th April, 1925, Hess’ thirty-first birthday, the 77 year old Paul Ludwig Hans von
Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg [1847-1934], the “victor of Tannenberg” and the former
supreme commander of the Kaiser's army entered the second round of the presidential elections,
receiving over a million more votes than the bürgerlich-center- left candidate, Wilhelm Marx.
Hindenburg was the candidate supported by a Reichsblock made up of the DNVP, DVP and the
Bayerischer Volkspartei (BVP). The NSDAP refrained from proposing Hitler because it was clear
that Hitler's emerging personality couldn't contend with the giant personality of von Hindenburg.
As Hess was to remind himself, “Man darf nicht vergessen, dass wir im Zeichen des Abbaus stehen,
und erst recht stehen werden, wenn die vorerst zu erwartenden bösen Jahre kommen.”[177] He
appears to be under no illusions in regard to the tasks ahead, but this reflects Hess whenever he
wanted to appear intelligent before a selective audience. His parents and Ilse helped to reassure him
about his chosen path in life, but a deeper analysis of his thinking and motives reveals him on other
occasions as a neurotic and incompetent individual searching for self-gratification. If one were to
describe the essence of Hess' state of mind it became one torn between egoism and his loftier
idealism.

1924 had seen the introduction of the Dawes Plan, which acted as a guarantee for the German
policy of fulfillment. This permitted the Germans to pay reparations over a longer and more
favorable period and helped to restore German confidence in the economy with a guarantee of
economic aid. Stresemann, who led the Reichsblock's revisionist strategy, aimed secretly for a
permanent postponement of all reparations. The DVP statesman saw the favorable help of the
Dawes Plan as a step in the right direction. The following year, 1925, saw the signing of the
Locarno Treaty between Germany, France and the Benelux countries. This revealed Germans
willingness to have their western frontier guaranteed, but not their eastern one. Stresemann was
clever enough to allay French fears, satisfy German hopes of international rehabilitation and keep
extremist nationalists in check by keeping the eastern frontier open. Within a short time Germany
joined the League of Nations. For Hitler these republican achievements remained unacceptable.

Hess recalls how often he accompanied Hitler. It is interesting that Hitler used the issues of foreign
affairs to help build up unity in the small, but reemerging NSDAP. Playing the foreign policy card
seemed easier than promising the party and the electorate idealistic notions about a future national
community. Hence, the NSDAP developed a very strong foreign policy line of argument against
Stresemann and the Reichsblock. Hindenburg didn't fall under criticism as he was seen as the great

123
symbolic figure of German tradition. The Reich President had also sworn not to become involved
in political issues and to keep the nation's head high morally. Yet even Hindenburg would be
perturbed by the Reparations Question and would gradually allow himself to become involved in
internal politics. He was able to do this through the Constitution's Article 48 that permitted the use
of special presidential powers. Ebert had used it during the French occupation of the Ruhr in 1923.
Hindenburg would in contrast abuse his position unconstitutionally, using nepotism and back door
influence to secure control of the Reich post for military affairs [Reichswehrminister], which he
gave to his former comrade in arms, the former quarter master of the Kaiser's army, Wilhelm
Groener [1867-1939].

In July, 1925, Hitler traveled up and down the nation tirelessly by train delivering speeches against
the Dawes Plan, the Locarno Treaty and the Reparations Question. He saw all three of these
aspects of the republic’s foreign policy as shameful. One evening he spoke in Munich; another in
Stuttgart, then in Berlin. Hess accompanied him on all occasions. Hitler was using the foreign
policy issues to help stylize himself as a nationalist leader of repute. He saw the republic as too self
satisfied with its achievements. He also attacked German membership of the League of Nations.
He felt Germany was kowtowing to the Western Entente. As long as the Reparations Question
remained unresolved then the national shame would remain prolonged, so he argued, and called for
a unilateral repudiation of reparations in the name of the dead, the fallen generation of the last
war. Hess was in full agreement and writes of the exciting expectation that Hitler's arrival at
political meetings would cause. Everything was dramatic, especially with train arrivals and
dramatic steps towards the speaker's hall. Usually a fast car was waiting. Hess recalls how he, too,
either through delay or because of his attention to other affairs, would sometimes arrive before a
Hitler speech just in the nick of time: “Ich traf in Stgt 4 Minuten vor Beginn der Führerbesprechung
ein, sprang vor dem Bahnhof in ein Auto und war punktlich im Saal.”[178]

Hess gives his parents a picture of excitement and fast events. In his self-pride he expresses a sense
of humor, referring to himself as “Der Herr Sekretär.” He had “officially” become Hitler's Private
Secretary in April, 1925.[179] This represented a massive step because it revealed how far Hess
was committing himself to Hitler's cause. True, he had operated “unofficially” as Hitler's Private
Secretary in Landsberg Prison, but the significance of this post becoming “official” carried greater
ramifications. He was now placed in the public eye as the 'Number Two' in the small, but aspiring
movement. Hess insisted on particular conditions upon his appointment, which Hitler accepted. In
his letter to his parents, dated 24th April, 1925, we learn that Hess occupies a special status. Hitler
cleverly turned Hess' request for an autonomous position to appear as his own recommendation.
Hess writes, “Auch legt er (Hitler) von vornherein Wert darauf, dass ich kein Parteiangestellter bin,
sondern ganz unabhängig vor der Partei stehe.” Was Hitler nervous about having a 'Number Two'
at his shoulders? The insistence that Hess wasn't to be seen as a party employee, but as a separately
paid secretary is curious. Even so, Hess became on account of his secretarial position a party
bigwig!

Hess also became a kind of sleuth as he participated in party secret meetings at Hitler's side. The
German police on account of Hitler's Putsch attempt were obligated to monitor his movements and
public appearances. This sometime led to escapades whenever Hitler wanted to speak secretly and
avoid plain clothed police officials. Hess reports that Hitler is constantly watched by 35 criminal
investigation officials.[180] Sometimes this led to humorous confrontations. Hess writes of one
occasion: “Der Tribun erkennt die Beamten vor dem Haus. Beide Seiten grinsen sich vergnüglich
an.”[181] Then just as Hitler could dramatically appear, so, too, could he disappear. Hess
comments, “Als er (Hitler) zur Bahn hierher wollte (an seinem Wagen wird ein Lager
ausgewechselt), gelang es ihm, zu einem Hintertor zu entwischen.” He continues, “Am

124
Anhalterbahnhof standen aber schon wieder zwei Beamte, die ihn erwarteten. Sie mussten wohl
durch ein Telfongespräch mit mir hier von der beabsichtigten Abfahrt wissen.”[182] It is part of
Hess' job description to liaise with the police and inform them of Hitler's intentions. He has to
contact them, but isn't at liberty to give precise information. He enjoys the cloak and dagger aspect
of being close to Hitler and watches amusingly as the police and Hitler share altercations, sarcastic
smiles and near misses. Hess concludes, “Es macht ihn (Hitler) Freude, den Beamten dazwischen
ein Schnippchen zu schlagen.”[183]

The escapes, fun and excitement as well as Hitler's public speaking offer Hess a seemingly more
engaging life. Once again appearances are deceptive. Before accepting Hitler's post as his Private
Secretary Hess was actually in a better off position. The one Karl Haushofer offered him at Die
Deutsche Akademie had promised job security, an annual salary and bürgerlich respectability.
Haushofer regarded Hitler and the NSDAP as too radical. He hoped for stability around the
Reichsblock and praised the highly respected status of Hindenburg. Hess wasn't interested in what
Haushofer was able to offer and thus rejects him once again, as he had done in Landsberg prison.
They remained friends, but this wasn't enough for Haushofer who was genuinely worried about
Hess' radicalizing political career. In contrast Hess' parents appear supportive of their son's political
stance. Admittedly, Klara Hess takes a back seat behind her husband. It is Fritz Hess, who finds a
new voice once again in his former familiar patriarchal role.

Fritz Hess wants to appear as a champion of justice over injustice. In this respect he admires his
son's effort in challenging the Reich government. For the government Fritz Hess hasn't a kind word
to say. He is embittered. In a letter to his son he reveals how he has done his mathematical sums
and summarizes the grand total of losses he feels he has incurred. These are:

“angemeldet: Fritz Heß privat M. 824.600, -

angemeldet: Heß & Co M 2.512.400, -

M.3.337.000,-”

Hess' father claims his assets have acquired interest on account of rising inflation. A stable Reich
Mark, as was once again evident from 1924 onwards, was to his favor, but he insists that the value
of his pre1914 assets be met. He becomes unrealistic. He nevertheless, condemns the Reich
government. For him the establishment of the Reichsblock, Hindenburg's ascendancy as Reich
President and Stresemann's foreign policy carries no meaning. It is as if all his toil for his family
and in the name of the Auslandsdeutschen has been for nothing. For this reason he understands his
son's rejection of Haushofer's brand of aristocratic-reactionary politics.

Hess accentuates his political break from Haushofer by rejecting the position offered at Die
Deutsche Akademie. This was a move that hurt his apparent mentor. Hess' parents are the first to
know of this decision. Hess tells them, “und nun kommt eine Überraschung für Euch, nachdem bei
der Akademie in meinen Augen vieles faul und für mich persönlich auf die Dauer unerfreulich war,
habe ich den wiederholten Bitten des Tribunen nachgegeben und habe eine Vertrauensstellung an
seiner Seite angenommen, die nebenbei noch sehr viel besser bezahlt ist als in der
Akademie.”[184] It is ludicrous that Hess appears to justify a higher income as the justification for
his leaving Haushofer for Hitler. Yet the matter isn't a financial one, but ideological. He disguises
this fact because he wants to appear for his parents' sake as respectably bürgerlich. This is the
underlying contradiction in Hess' personality as his subconscious bürgerlich yearning for a steady
income and acceptable status runs contrary to his egotistical drive for fame, influence and
radicalism at the head of the NSDAP organization. He rejects Haushofer's aristocratic-reactionary

125
nationalism and his attempt at bridge building between the aristocratic and bürgerlich classes
because for him this isn't representative of the nationalist unity he feels Hitler and the NSDAP can
offer. As fas as Haushofer's personality of the 1920s is concerned, in contrast to the later one he
assumed after 1933/34, the NSDAP represents an unjustified political radicalism upsetting the
nationalist applecart. Hess though will not listen. He is driven onwards in his own radicalism and
equally by Hitler's magnetic personality.

As an indication of Hess' commitment to Hitler we need not only consider his status as Hitler's
Private Secretary, but also the language he uses in his letters to his parents. He wants to convince
them that Hitler is the man of destiny who will bring Germany greatness. In expressing this view
Hess wants to elevate himself in their eyes. He is also expressing his subconscious view that
doesn't want to be seen by his parents as a failure. Hess wants to combine all his desires, conscious
and subconscious, into a happy medium. He feels being at Hitler's side in the political struggle will
heighten his sense of political martyrdom. According to his reasoning he isn't rejecting a normal
bürgerlich job and income by rejecting Die Deutsche Akademie, but sacrificing it for a greater,
idealistic cause with Hitler and the NSDAP. He elevates his self-importance by expressing himself
as someone who knows and understands Hitler and who can anticipate and build around his
intentions. He tells his parents, “Den Tribunen erkenne ich als Führer an. Zu ihm stehe ich in
einem persönlichen Vertrauensverhältnis, sonst hat mir niemand etwas reinzureden. Im Gegenteil,
ich vertrete ihn in vielen Dingen, empfange Besucher für ihn, erledige seine Korrespondenz, reise
und verhandle für ihn. Das Ansehen, das ich genieße, ist entsprechend.”[185]

The assumption that Hess was a slavish follower of Hitler doesn't tally. He was prepared to work
for Hitler as long as he felt confident that Hitler was willing to give of himself to the people and the
movement. He explains to his parents how he sees his work as a “Zusammenarbeit” (partnership)
with Hitler. He regards it as a partnership because he feels he possesses the necessary intelligence
and educated background to be a model of influence. In order for Hitler to learn from him there has
to be an equal trust on both sides, he reasons, and he thinks he has achieved this, writing boastfully:

“Ich bin bei der Bewegung seit den Tagen, da sie noch keine 100 Köpfe zählte, kenne ich also den äußeren
Aufbau, das äußere Wirken durch und durch, ebenso kenne ich aber die inneren Gedanken des Tribunen,
seine Einstellung zu allen nur möglichen Fragen, seine ganze Art. Er kennt mich; das gegenseitige
Vertrauen bis zum Letzten, das Verstehen ist da.”

What Hess achieves is taking Haushofer's dictum of educating a political intermediary for the
masses and transforms it into one of educating the future Messiah-like nationalist leader. Hess
doesn't regard as Haushoufer does the prospect of having a nationalist intermediary between the
social classes just for the aristocratic-reactionary elites to assert their former position. He differs
entirely by seeing Hitler as the nationalist leader who will unite all social classes not for the benefit
of the elites but for the whole nation.

In his role as educator Hess describes himself in an exaggerated fashion. He boasts to his parents,
“Dank meines Studiums, das ich ja zum Teil auf die Bewegung eingestellt hatte, bin ich in der
Lage, gebildeten Menschen gegenüber für sie bisher nicht ganz Klares entsprechend zu
behandeln.”[186] He thinks he can entice the educated classes over to the party. For Hess this is
important for his future vision of society and has much to do with his absorption of Othmar Spann's
Berufsstände idea. For a future national community Hess advanced Spann's theories regarding the
positive involvement of the professional, educated classes in helping to organize the economy and
society. To Hess' credit he would win Hitler over to the idea of Stände, so that the NSDAP leader
would appreciate the essential perception of society as a self-regulating racial organism. The
projected Gau-, Kreis- and Ortsgruppen of the NSDAP would act as the vessels of racial entity with

126
ultimately Hitler acting as the head of the metaphorical body. Furthermore, society would reflect
through the professions (organized as Berufsstände) the different self-regulating aspects of an
economy, which would act as the “life blood” of this perception of society as a racial organism.

As Hess wanted to weave his personal idealism around the cult of Hitler's personality, making the
leader of the movement a vessel for all that was considered for the national good, he elevated
himself as educator and guide, writing, “ich eigne mich als Bindeglied zwischen der
Massenbewegung und der Schicht der Gebildeten.”[187] He saw himself achieving important party
contacts to industry, to writers, to agronomists, and to technocrats in their respective fields. He
recognized it as a difficult task to convince others of the genuineness of the movement, so for that
reason he turned to Hitler's psychology tactics as laid out in Mein Kampf. He was, as previously
indicated, reluctant as the great idealist to resort to Machiavellian methods of deception.
Nevertheless as he willingly admits: “Andererseits bin ich viel zu sehr von der Notwendigkeit der
an sich oft unerfreulichen Mittel und Formen des Kampfes – im Hinblick auf die Psychologie der
Massen – überzeugt, als dass ich mich durch sie vom Mitwirken bei dieser Bewegung abschrecken
lassen würde – wie so viele andere Gebildete.”[188] Preferably, he would have liked to have left
the messy aggressiveness out of politics, but just as he was willing to accept Hitler's darker side
with his aggressive outbursts, demeanor and whip and pistol in hand, so too was he willing to
accept his own darker side and engage it in the pursuit of political power.

127
 FOUR

Romantic Illusions

“Liebe wallt durch Ozeane,

Höhnt der dürren Wüste Sand,

Blutet an der Siegesfahne

Jauchzend für das Vaterland,”

– Friedrich Hölderlin

4.1 The Poet

In ordinary lives it is usual to separate one's personal life from one's professional occupation. There
is time for family, wives and children. In Hess' case the separation became less identifiable. He
combined his idealistic motives with his politics and forged a unity between his private and
personal life. In fact all those close to Hitler would experience this combination of the personal
aspects of life becoming merged with the political. Albert Speer [1905-1981] would among others
confess in his diary how he felt this combination to be a burden and that he personally hated the
“officialdom,” which he felt creeping fully into his life.[1] One should though be wary of Speer's
plea to his reader. His opportunism gave him a closely cherished place at Hitler's side and he
earned with his promotion to General Bauinspektor considerable sums of money.[2] He wasn't
against making a profit through his contacts to the regime and welcomed the chance of building
buildings for it, as, like Hitler, he believed he would leave his indelible stamp upon Germany and
future generations.[3]

Hess’ personal affiliation to his cause didn't bring with it the personal disappointments Speer
experienced. Hess was always looking instead to improving his commitment to the party. He spent
extra hours drawing up ideas for propaganda with the intention, too, of explaining his views not just
to other comrades, but also his parents and extended family and above all to Ilse Proehl, the young
woman he met in August, 1920, and with whom he fell in love. His meeting Ilse occurred one
evening on the landing just as he was leaving his room in the pension house Schildberg in Munich.
Ilse had been lodging there too as his neighbor, although it was the occasion of chance and their
enthusiasm for political questions that was to draw the two young people together. Before he left,
Hess handed her a political leaflet, with information about anti-Semitism. He was on his way to a
political meeting where he intended along with his comrades to heckle the main speaker, General
Bothmer. This reveals how confrontational the NSDAP was not just against the Left but also
against reactionary figures of the Right.[4]

128
Hess often combines his private realm with his political life through Romanticism. He affords time
and space for his communal ideas – then in embryonic form – and reflects his determination not just
to see the fortunes of the German worker improved, but also that of all social classes. He advances
a socialist message in that his aims are egalitarian, in favor of no specific class. This reflects his
nationalist socialism inherited from his ideas of camaraderie from the trenches. His views found
personal expression, however, through a romanticist medium: namely poetry. In his poems he
addresses the nation and yet at the same time he conveys his love for Ilse, seeing in her a nationalist
and libertine figure resplendent in the regalia of a mythical princess. His poems exude the aura of
the romantic hero and he indulges in themes such as personal martyrdom, religiosity and nationalist
dedication.

An illustration of Hess’ poetry is a poem he wrote on September 10th, 1924, entitled Kühlender
Wind. The date of the poem strikes one as significant as this reveals how he had already been
serving his prison sentence together with Hitler for four months. The poem therefore serves a dual
purpose: one to reflect Hess’ deepest expression of though from a spiritual point of view and second
to instill him with the drive and personal energy required to focus politically on his collaboration
with Hitler over the writing up of Mein Kampf. Against this background Hess’ poetry thus acquires
a degree of importance that ought to be underestimated or dismissed as just kitsch. His poem
Kühlender Wind is a simple construction. It is divided into two eleven lined verses. To what extent
Hess was aware of poetic technique remains conjecture. He doesn't admit admiring any great poets,
though one would guess at Goethe and Schiller. His mother had sent him many of their works
during his convalescence after suffering wounds during the First World War. Perhaps this is
another reason why some of his verse carries a darker meaning and dabbles with the theme of
death. Nevertheless, in Kühlender Wind love does blossom and this leaves the poem more
characteristic in its own format away from his usual pessimist and fatalist grumblings, which in
contrast descend more rapidly into expressions of kitsch. Kühlender Wind, however, we may take
more seriously because of its aesthetic value and its simple construction. It possibly reflects, too,
Hess' admiration for Schiller. He certainly employs Schiller's theme of purity and of the soul, the
love of which he combines with Nature and a dream-like reality.

Hess imagines the night touched by the gentle breeze, which swathes and swirls and brings him to
the arms of his most cherished loved one. The heroine of the verse responds. She kisses the spirit
that approaches: that of her lover with whom she becomes entwined. Hess conveys his message as
one spirit yearning for another being carried upon the currents of the wind to their rightful place in
the arms of one another. Hess writes [5]:

“Kühlender Wind

in finsterer Nacht

wirble dahin,

brause dahin,

grüße die Liebste,

suche sie auf,

fächle sie sacht,

leise, ganz leis'

129
 streichle sie,

kuß' sie von mir!”

The second verse of the poem returns to the theme of the wind. This time the breezy undercurrents
are reciprocal. They carry the woman’s love for the man, a foretaste of which is given by the scent
of roses. Hess in the role of the poem’s narrator becomes dreamy and entranced by the soulful
scent, which takes him away from reality. There then occurs an arousal occurs: the man is
awakened and the purpose of life is revealed to him. He discerns that his mission is to be with the
one whom he loves. One may think this the woman – and in some ways this is surely so – but the
female character is also one synonymous with the nation; and it is the nation, which the narrator
decisively embraces. The second verse appears thus [6]:

“Kühlender Wind

kehr' bei mir ein,

Rosen von ihr

rührst Du im Flug.

Rosenduft hauch'

hin zu dem Lieb,

dass es ihm träum'

von seliger Zeit,

wie sie verflog,

wie sie uns winkt -

wär's doch kein Traum!”

The poem acts as a catalyst for Hess' creative output, which may be measured not just through the
other poems that he wrote but also through the engaging commitment he showed in his tasks on
propaganda and party organization. In this light his poetry becomes a vehicle for his ideological
ideas, which are bathed in Romanticism and have a visionary light destined towards his racial
utopia. This in fact reflects, too, the awakening purpose Hess’ poetry achieves within himself; and,
furthermore, his poetry forms an incisive link between his romantic projections for the woman he
loves with the love he expresses dearly for the nation.

Romanticism fascinated Hess as a theme in his creative thoughts from an early age. As a young
schoolboy he began to admire the qualities of leadership, self-sacrifice and of religious piety –
values which were taught to him by his teachers in drama and playground activities reflecting the
Romanticism of the pre1914 Wilhelmine epoch. Herr Eulemann, for instance, taught him and his
classmates how noble the idea of self-sacrifice for one’s comrade could be, especially when one’s
devotion to one’s school and friends could be translated into selfless devotion for one’s country,
regiment and comrades.[7] In this light it is interest how the romantic values of the Wilhelmine
period overspill into the idea of war camaraderie Hess was to experience in the trenches and from

130
which he derived his enthusiasm for the idea of a classless national community; an idea that was
propelled as an integral part of his later vision for the NS-Volksgemeinschaft.

The First World War was a major factor influencing Hess' poetry. It drew out of him feelings
inexorably attracted towards the matter of death. He tries to invert his sense of personal loss,
measuring this in terms of guilt and self-sacrifice. It is an attempt to challenge death through the
weapon he feels best able to ride upon: namely those sarcastic undercurrents he adopt from the
melody of Die bange Nacht.[8] He successfully combines his love for Nature with the themes of
war and death and gives the impression of one’s youthful soul wandering luckless and forlorn until
it becomes overwhelming browbeaten and his body sinks downcast to the ground. He wanders
without hope of returning to the parental home. So thoroughly sick has he become that he sees no
way of emerging from his corrupted state. He utters his disdain through a contemptuous sagacity
[9]:
“Ein Landsknecht sei ich von Natur

und dächt' an Krieg und Wandern nur,

schlüg selbst mein Glück in Scherben.

Hätt' keinen Sinn für's Elternhaus,

drum würd' ich auch – man sieht's voraus -

verderben – verderben.”

Hess reveals his own feelings with a sense of having fallen. He essentially regards himself as one
corrupted and marked by the exigencies of darkened, brutalized conflict. As a young man he fought
without gaining recognition and feels so sickened by the conflict that subsumed him that he now
feels unable to return to his family home [in this case the family summer house at Reicholdsgrün
just outside Wagner’s Bayreuth]. He continues in bitter parody against the foibles of his
countrymen for whom out of love he fought and in return has received nothing. His Christian faith
pales away into insignificance. It is replaced by a burning anger, which refutes the oath he once
took upon the Christian alter [as a Catholic seminary pupil in Neuchâtel in September, 1909]. He
sees himself rather dying than sacrificing himself in prayer to such hypocrisy, writing:

“Ich schwur nie Treu' vor dem Alternative

und doch würd' für mein Lieb' fürwahr

ich sterben – ich sterben!!”

The imagery he conveys becomes astutely aggressive, laced however at times with some laconic
humor. He no longer shows any respect for death. It represents in his mind a burning, consuming
fire, which may glow warmly at times just as the glow may shine upon the cheeks and limbs of the
young woman whom he loves.

Hess’ anger contrasting against his sensitivity descends into crude humor. Ilse, his beloved in life
and the recipient of his poems, accepts his inconsistencies and sharp towering eulogies. Lamenting
for something greater, Hess fantasizes a tremendous act of healing taking place for individual and
nation whereupon the wounds of war shall eternally close up, the past shall be indefinitely stitched

131
away and brother shall be together with brother as one had always hoped. In this bitter-sweet act of
transformation another allusion drawn upon is that keen sense of new awakening emerging out of
the poet’s lines and out of his heart [10]:

“Es biß manch' Stahl in meinen Leib

viel heißer als ein glühend' Weib

Tod, ich spürt' keine Reue!

Und wenn die Wunden kaum geheilt,

bin, Brüder, ich zu Euch geeilt

auf's Neue - - auf's Neue!!”

The autobiographical inferences are clear: Hess was wounded [albeit lightly] at Verdun causing him
to feel chastised by war and death. His wounds compel him to utter certain foolhardiness, which
becomes a feature of his character during the campaign in Romania during the autumn/winter of
1916/17. His words thus lend him an increasingly bitter and stubborn nationalist mentality, which
yearns for a time when comrades may be able to reap from the joys of being together in one new,
welcoming future transcending the vagaries and disappointments of war.

Ultimately, Hess sees himself as a fatalist figure; one, however, which is not averse to biting twists
of laconic humor. He'd rather see God saved, curiously by enlisting, too, alongside the ranks of
many thousands of young men duty bound and instilled with patriotism. In his peculiar analogy
God, too, has become a foot soldier. While the Heavenly Father is brought down to such an
experience, Hess the poet willingly courts death, thankful for it [is this being subtle and
simultaneously irreligious? Or is it just his excuse to escape lofty and burdensome thoughts?], as he
writes [11]:

“Nun werd' ich älter Jahr um Jahr,

bin nicht mehr der, der einst ich war;

mein Wehrzeug rost' im Schranke.

Laß Gott im Kampfe fallen nicht,

glaub' mir, dass noch im Sterben ich

Dir danken - - Dir danken.”

This positive refrain for the reader, with thoughts of thanks for his death, in actual fact displays a
condescending attitude and the thanks [is this directed at God, his comrades or even his enemy?]
may be interpreted as an expression of irony. The reader is thus left with the contradictory attitude
Hess shows towards death, which he spiritually courts and yet chastises for its shear pointlessness at
the same time. Hess’ bitter twist of irony reveals how one’s death may simply be caused through

132
one’s imbecilic wanderings. Such misfortune, a result of one’s personal ill-judgment, becomes
worsened by a simple case of neglect: leaving one’s essential weapon for defense behind in a
mahogany wardrobe. The poem thus borders on the ridiculous, but for this reason becomes
amusing for both Hess and Ilse.

* * *

Those who underestimate Hess fail to understand the subtle significance of his poetry. It served
him well in a political capacity, harboring his intent to combine his urge for Romanticism with a
naïve but nevertheless vociferous and ardent nationalism. As a young romantic he thus dedicates
himself to politics with a vibrant spirit. His inconsolable heart longs to right the wrongs of the
nation. Whereas political meetings and the dissemination of political pamphlets occupied him
intellectually, Hess found a subtle release for the expression of his spirit and of his heart through
poetry. Thus his poems cannot be regarded separately as a sensitive, unfulfilled pastime. They
must be reviewed as an integral part of his political thinking. One ought to acknowledge that a man
capable of poetical verse, sensitive to the vagaries of the human spirit, is one also sensitive to the
spirit of one’s people, of the nation and is thus in a better position to understand how the hearts and
minds of the masses. In other words, Hess’ poetry reflects the inner thoughts and feelings, of one’s
more subtle and sensitive side, and these run concurrently in tandem with his intellectual prowess
for propaganda. Hess is a man, therefore, with many strings to his bow. This was why Hitler felt
he could depend on him – not because he was a lackey or a slave to Hitler’s will [far from it!], but
because his soul and Hitler’s touched accordingly and unveiled those subtle and indefinable
qualities lurking within us all.

It is this theme of unity, one expressed with passion and sincerity, which is the hallmark of Hess’
poetic character. It reflects his political ambition to succeed at Hitler’s side. His poetry thus
becomes a powerful vehicle for giving him scope and depth to harness his broad sensitivities as a
motivating factor in the serious business of developing one’s political rhetoric and propagandistic
prose. More ably equipped in this way than other Nazi figures, he was able – at least until the
political pressures of 1940/41 – to avoid slipping into political caricature with all its attendant
phrase mongering, ideological limitation and ideological cretinism. These less distinguishing
features affected many Nazis hoping to follow Hitler’s trail, but Hitler did not think highly of them.
At his side he didn’t want a brainless lackey – the party had many of these – but a man with reason
and whose heart he understood. This is the key to understanding the relationship between Hess and
Hitler, the one which was forged in Landsberg prison in 1924 and which was to define their
political relationship up until the point of Hess’ departure from the political scene in May, 1941,
when he embraced the idea for his final dramatic and romantic gesture: namely the flight to Great
Britain.

Hess was, though, as events turned out, unable to judge correctly when the moment for a great
political gesture had arrived, which was in June, 1940, when Britain’s fortunes were unfavorable
with her morale at its lowest ebb following her defeat at Dunkirk. A concerted peace effort, led by
Nazi-Germany, with a revitalized France under Marshal Petain [1856-1951], together with an
attendant Fascist Italy might have provided the working arrangement for a Four Power Peace in
Europe [as the appeasers had wanted], thus inducing the British to accept peace under the illusion of
a diplomatic balance of power being maintained. This would have been enough to have given
confidence to the majority supporters of Lord Halifax against Churchill [1874-1965] in the battle
for the succession after Chamberlain’s [1869-1940] demise. Such a supposition remains subjective,
but nevertheless a National Socialist peace failed in the summer of 1940 because the competing
agencies within the German hierarchy, namely between the army leaders and the NSDAP, couldn’t

133
agree on a peace agenda [neither for that matter on a war agenda!]. German diplomacy was thus
prevented from benefiting from the military victory so astonishingly achieved that spring. The
question of a National Socialist peace lies ahead. Suffice is to say that possibilities for such a
peace, being crowned simultaneously with a personalized dramatic gesture, find their origins in
Hess’ Romanticism and in his youth idealism, expressed so evocatively in his early poetry.

In terms of the fallen and tragic hero Hess – incidentally like Hitler – identifies himself with the
legendary character from the German tales of Die Nibelungen: Siegrfied. Siegfried, the hero, is
treacherously betrayed by Hagen, his former comrade and warrior in battle, who slays him with a
vicious stab to the back. The saga adopts the character of the saddened nation: of Germany, one
equally betrayed and stabbed in the back by criminals [“the November Criminals”]. The criminals
of the drama were identified as the Jews, above all the Jews, despite the lurking desultory
intellectuals of the Left. It is this analogy both Hitler and Hess draw upon in their perception of
their own lives and in that of the nation’s, which inspired them to collaborate over the writing up of
Hitler’s Mein Kampf, in Landsberg prison between May and December, 1924, a time during which
Hitler gained in confidence through the written word [albeit temporarily, for his greatest gift was
the spoken word], while Hess recognized in Hitler’s spirit and during his virtually unknown – out of
the public gaze – bouts of depression potential qualities in need of being lifted, so that Hitler could
carry out his role of destiny – his role in the national drama as Siegfried.

This combination of drama, poetry and politics formed, essentially speaking, the characteristics of
Hess’ personal mindset, which one comes to know not just through the revelations of his poetical
verse, but also through the lines of other poems that caught his interest and at best defined his
nationalist yearnings. He kept a cut out copy, for instance, from the political and satirical
nationalist magazine, Kladderadatsch [which curiously translates as codswallop, which denotes the
satirical tone of the publication’s articles and contributions]. What Hess kept aside was an example
of burning patriotic verse, ashamed by the ‘stab in the back’ Germany had apparently received in
the hands of her ‘unworthy politicians’. The words, although not his words, struck a soulful chord
with his patriotic yearnings [12]:

“(...) Vergessen der Kaiser, eisgrau und alt, der neunzig Jahre durchmessen (...)

Es liegt ein Grab im Sachsenwald – vergessen, vergessen, vergessen!

Vergessen ist, was wir selber gesehen vom Nordmeer bis zu Karpaten,

Bei Tannenberg das große Geschehen, der Brüder unsterbliche Taten.

Und Sieg um Sieg vier Jahre lang, wir sahen die freudetrunken;

nun sind sie ohne Sang und Klang vergessen, verschollen, versunken!

Vergessen der Stolz und der männliche Mut, vergessen der Ruhm und die Ehre!

Vergessen das heilige, rote Blut der todesmutigen Heere! (...)”

The image of an “eisgrau und alt” Kaiser pays reverence to the former Emperor of the Reich at the
time of German unification in 1870/71 after the ‘glorious victory’ at the Battle of Sedan against

134
Napoleon III: Kaiser William I. The mention of one of the nation’s immemorial graves is the one in
which Bismarck’s sarcophagus lies, in the family vault at Sachsenwald. The third line of the poem
harkens to the time of victory against the British at sea, in the Battle of Jutland on 30th/31st March,
1916, when the German navy, although mauled herself, won in terms of number a victory in the
sinking of battleships and battle cruisers over the British, the “perfidious Albion.” The inference
through mention of Grodek is once more complimentary to the victory of German arms, this time
with her Austrian-Hungarian ally against the Russia of the Czars on the Eastern Front, where an
earlier battle occurred in August-September, 1914, which was as much deified as were the leaders,
Hindenburg and Ludendorff, who had wrestled the victory once again away from the Russians.
With all this head-swilling intoxication of victories the poem implies how could Germany lose the
war, but worse was the thought: how could the nation forget its courageous young warriors who had
fought so selflessly and bravely for the Fatherland?

The poem becomes overawed with melancholy and tragedy for such is the sudden defeat that has
befallen Germany. However, an echo of nationalist resilience reverberates. It harkens to the act of
‘reawakening’ alluded to in Hess’ earlier poem. It communicates through the intimate use of the
simple words “wir” and “du” [“us” and “you”] a dialogue between the narrator and the patriot,
assumed in this case to be the reader. With its staunch appeal directed towards the brotherhood of
nation and people, the poem offers a quasi-religious flavor. It proclaims in God’s name Germans to
be the Almighty’s servants, wishing to emerge victorious out of the sunken shambles of the earth.
It is an example of the quasi-religious rhetoric Hess was later to employ during the 1930s when he
characterized his love for the nation, Hitler and the German people:

“Den Herrn spielt jeder freche Wicht, und wir seine Knechte!

O Deutschland, wo blieb dein eisern Geschlecht, du ragendstes Volk der Erde.”

Such a staunch appeal urges the German people to be hard in their resolve and to emerge from their
chains victorious, iron hearted and resolute.

Furthermore, the Kladderadatsch verses act as an imposing influence on the development of Hess’
poetry as well as contributing to the quasi-religious rhetoric he would later use to augment his
concept of national leadership and of national resurrection. There is a Messianic quality emerging
here, with a precise reference to the great and glorious dead waiting to arise out of their sarcophagus
to confront the dragon of pestilence, which so troubles Germany. The verses embellish Germanic
myth and legend in imitation of Die Nibulungen [13]:

“Ich aber weiß: es kommt der Tag, der wird empor dich rütteln, da steigst du auf aus dem Sarkophag, da
wird der Ekel dich schütteln.

Da wird erwachen der stürmende Groll und den züngelnden Drachen vernichten;

Da wird man, göttlichen Zornes voll, gewaltige Taten verrichten!

Da lasse der Himmel den frevelnden Wahn mit rächendem Maße

dich messen!

Und was der Feind uns angetan, dass sei ihm nicht vergessen!”

135
The lines evoke an infantile quality, rendering ‘a tooth for a tooth’ and ‘an eye for an eye’ approach
[this was also to be a feature of Hitler’s Mein Kampf] in dealing with Germany’s former enemies.
These lines foretell Germany’s rise once again, but there is no prophetic mention of the havoc and
distress the NSDAP will bring, for the anonymous author of the above envisaged a coming
‘National Revolution,’ one of national spiritual renewal, embossed with the idea of German
19th Century Romanticism.

Hess differs from the above, invoking instead the racial creed for his new thinking. When he first
started experimenting with poetry as early as 1921/22, he remonstratively became more involved
with ideas of a racial character. His words thus draw upon the traditional Germanic conception of
saga, myth and legend. He combines this with a view of ‘Racial Man’ and of ‘Racial Woman.’
Together these two new pillars form the racial vision he projects for his racial utopia. The seed of
Hess’ future ideological thinking thus takes place, using the themes of race, nation and society.
‘Racial Man’ and ‘Racial Woman’ represent emerging figures in his poetic use of metaphor to
describe the nation’s spiritual “Awakening.”

In the embrace of an “Awakening” Hess’ figures of man and woman emerge as heroic figures. The
male echoes Siegfried, the savior and conqueror who becomes invigorated in his quest for the love
of one woman. The nobility of the characters is strongly conveyed, but their qualities lay outside of
the conventional bounds of 19th Century romantic literary invention. They encompass instead
aspects of future ‘Racial Man’ and of ‘Racial Woman’. This reflects Hess’ personal description of
his relationship to Ilse. In Leis' ging ein Strömen [written in 1922] he conjures up a romantic, and
yet futuristic racial image, of himself and of his partner. He conveys, too, a sense of Mission, one
intended to transform nation and society racially and to put the world to rights. Yet this occurs at a
cost, for such a Mission brings on much personal self-sacrifice. Hess alludes to each individual
having to think beyond themselves in order to merge in poetic unity with beauty and aestheticism,
which can only be constructed through the new society [the future NS-Volksgemeinschaft].

Hess alludes to romantic images of Nature. Just as he expresses in his poem Kühlender Wind, he
embraces Nature through an emotive description of the breeze. It gathers in strength and as its
blows it captures a patriotic tempestuousness about it, swirling in great sweeps forward towards its
destination over the sleeping nation [“Schlafenden Lande“] towards the arms of the beloved; and as
she awaits the approaching conqueror [the narrator of the poem] she is brought closer and closer
until the final embrace takes place – one nevertheless Hess tantalizing holds back until the breath of
the lovers breathe as one together with the nation [Germany], which no longer sleeps. In a
disguised poetic fashion the Nazi theme “Deutschland erwache!” is subtly communicated.

The patriotic wind [this may appear to many readers as kitsch!] is nevertheless an interesting device
if one gives Hess the benefit of the doubt and acknowledges certain qualities he possesses as a
nationalist poet. Admittedly, there is nothing here that would have probably merited publication,
but the germ of a good idea was nestling in Hess as he thought of expressing in subtle poetic form
his political and racial views. Had he worked hard at developing his style, giving it more thorough
attention, he may even have appeared as the poet of the movement just as Gabriel D’Annunzio was
considered to be the poet of Italian Fascism. Italian Fascism must also have had its influence upon
Hess’ young mind, for in being an avid reader of the international press [he especially liked among
his foreign journals the French paper Le Jour] he wouldn’t have been necessarily ignorant of artistic
and aesthetic trends abroad. D’Annunzio and the writings of Charles Maurres [whom one considers
the founding-father of Action Français and of modern French anti-Semitism] would more than
likely have reached his attention. Nevertheless, one is safe to assume that the major influence in
Hess’ thoughts remained German, although one can include within this cultural sphere Austria from

136
which he had benefited in terms of assimilating into his thought processes the ideas of Stände. One
may even include Jewish ideas, if one wants to accept that his short-lived collaboration with
Siegfried Stern, the Jewish intellectual, falls within the influence of the German cultural realm! On
the whole, however, one may point to Hess’ cultural and romanticist German background, forged
through a combination of upbringing, education and of personal experience, as the leading factor
contributing to his mindset.

Deeply festooned within his cultural mindset would have been the towering legacy of German
Romantic Thought. This influenced his poetry writing and this reflected his romanticized ideals of
History, of economic and social relations, of societal values and of the role of man, woman and
family within the embrace of the nation. It is curious that Hess – one arguably may call him a
romantic and a dreamer – looked upon ideas in a generalized and visionary way. He did read, as he
read articles in the foreign press, but he was distrustful of homegrown German Intellectualism.
Hess like Hitler looked to his German ideas mainly from the point of view of searching out a deeper
and mysterious German past. Hess acknowledged modern trends, but he tried to incorporate within
them his mystical and visionary image of Germany.

It is for this reason – Hess’ longing for a mystical and visionary romanticized view of Germany –
that one may turn to Hess’ poetry to gain a vivid impression of how he saw man and woman
working inexorably together as a racial unit. He appeals to nature and through his inferences
characterizes the divine nature of God within the natural elements – a view which is very romantic
and anti-modernist. We shouldn’t, though, overestimate the anti-modernist urge within him
because like the other ideas of National Socialism to which he contributed there arise a
contradictory blend of anti-modernist backward-looking romanticized thoughts with ones arguably
being progressive, modernist and scientifically racial. If anything, Hess’ romanticized views
belonged to the German bürgerlich disillusionment with modern life, industrialization and the big
city. Many of the intellectual journals of the time such as Deutsche Zeitschrift für Wohlfahrtspflege
he would have positively gleaned over in order to incorporate many of the topical ideas regarding
social issues. In some of the articles he would have encountered he would have sought
confirmation of ideas relating to health, youth and the care of the elderly.

One of the main issues of the Weimar period was that the state was handing out too much for the
care of the elderly at a time when the birth rate was declining. The conclusion reached in an article
in Deutsche Zeitschrift für Wohlfahrtspflege was that within a few decades financial expenditure for
the elderly would become too much of a burden. The matter was further complicated by the
number of those unable to work such as the physically disabled from the last war, the mentally ill
and those attributed as having irresolvable social behavior problems [“Asozialen”]. One article in
the above journal points an accusing finger at the republic for having taken on board too much
social responsibility, stating: “Die Krankenhäuser, Altersheime, Irren- und Idiotenanstalten sahen
sich infolge der zunehmenden Teuerung genötigt, im Laufe des Jahres 1925 wiederholt die
Pflegesätze bzw. Individualpflegesätze zu erhöhen.”[14] Reading such views would have given
Hess a sense of self-justification in terms of challenging the existing state with ideas for a racial
future.

Racial concepts, however, find their expression in Hess not through the writing of intellectual
articles as a riposte to serious minded intellectuals. One of the curious factors about the above
article is that although the author [K. Sperling] remonstrated about the huge cost of the republic his
motive was to search for more efficient ways of managing social care – not to repudiate it and not to
give up on the republic. Hess in contrast saw the republic and its laws representative of a sickened
system, decaying and bring on decay. Instead of rising to the challenge and exhibiting an

137
intellectual tour de force against his opponents he preferred to develop his ideas internally through
his poetry. His reaction to a threat of social decay and increased social problems was to return to
the theme of purity and of the soul as to be found through the bond of man and woman with
Nature. It is almost as if the ugly side of modernity and its burdensome welfare problems induce
Hess to become more romantic and compelled to search for solutions through his spiritual
wandering in tune with his poetical muse.

Hess’ poetry aims neither at self-improvement nor a publisher, but of fulfilling the concealed
purpose of rounding off his first stage of romantic development: namely between 1920 and 1924. It
is interesting to note how strong his romantic attributes became - ironically at the point when he had
the potential to develop farther but gave up. He reaches a potential for development in his poem,
Leis' ging ein Strömen. This particular poem reinforces the aspect of Nature Hess fondly wrote of.
It also reflects the strong nationalist edge to his writing. He draws upon the romantic legacy of
Germanic legend, saga and myth and uses this with a greater sophistication in conveying the
attributes of Nature. In his poem one almost feels the whisper of the breeze and the call of the
beloved one, whose opened arms await the approach of her conqueror – one in the guise of Emperor
Charlemagne, whose spirit is carried upon the easterly direction of the breeze.

The potential storm clouds surge like an accompanying army conquering the vast depths in its
advance [“Tief jagten die Wolken”]. Hess meshes the idea of History’s legacy [that of
Charlemagne’s] with the potent force of Nature. In his description the attributes of Nature serve a
dialogue between himself and the call of his beloved, as he writes [15]:

“Leis' ging ein Strömen

Durch meinen Körper –

Dein Rufen von ferne.

Über die weiten

Schlafenden Lande

Geb' ich Dir Antwort.”

Hess intends to convey the theme of an “Awakening.” The breeze gathers to become a tumultuous
wind. It assumes a swirling current bringing up upon its crest the figure of the conquering hero, the
“I-Narrator” of the verse. He answers the call of his beloved. Her cry echoes his as one for the
nation. It is the Fatherland [the “Schlafende Lande”], which shall arise. So moved is the conqueror
in his spirit that he convulses with apprehension, then joy, in being received by his female-warrior
companion – an invocation perhaps of the warrior-goddess “Germania”.

The poems Hess wrote reflect, however, the fundamental flaw in his character. He becomes
obsessed in portraying stereotypical images of Nature and of Man. Therefore, he slips back into
kitsch. The worth of his poetry is further undermined by his exploring the unity he desires of
“Racial Man” and of “Racial Woman.” He tries hard to insist upon the true nature of his
relationship to Ilse, which he thinks is evocative of his romantic imaginings; but it isn’t! Hess’
relationship to Ilse was often strained and hid the murky details of her previous past: a previous

138
attachment to a former undisclosed lover in Berlin. Although younger than Hess she was the one
who was sexually more experienced. This leant her character a sometimes hardened, realist edge –
thus one not in conformity with Hess’ romantic view of her. Ilse wasn’t only hardened by life, but
also at times expressed her cynical attitude. She would, for instance, ridicule the courting
indulgencies of Hess. Her past upset him. It disturbed the manner of his Romanticism, causing him
to imitate Ilse’s biting cynicism. Indeed just before their marriage in 1927 [which had been
postponed on account of Hess’ condescending attitude towards conventional marriage and religious
ceremony], Hess wrote on the eve of his wedding his most cynical indictment of his personal
relationship to Ilse. He referred to her in a letter to his unsuspecting parents, who had only wanted
the best for their dear son, as the only available “catch” and likened her to a viper waiting to spit out
at an unsuspecting hand.

Another reason why Hess eventually gave up the idea of poetry isn’t just because of kitsch
undermining his efforts, but also because of the personal realization that Ilse wasn’t the idealized
heroine figure he had imagined. This caused an inner conflict in Hess, which was never thoroughly
resolved. In this respect the viper had struck its deadly blow, but as previously alluded to the actual
viper which actually caused an end to his romantic and poetical expressions was paradoxically
Hitler, who had wanted to enhance them to embellish his own creative potential as a writer and as
an ideologue of the highest degree. This interference would draw not only Hess but Ilse closer
within Hitler’s orbit and to such an extent that the Hess couple would become involved in Hitler’s
personal life; and this, especially in the light of the tragedy that overwhelmed Hitler and ended in
his niece’s suicide in 1931, would hold serious political consequences.

4.2 Expounding the Hitler-Myth

Munich Society had since the unencumbered days of the ill-fated Räterrepublik been harboring
grievances against what it perceived as ‘Jewish-Marxist’ intellectualism. The same imperturbable
fears and prejudices had characterized the reactions of the Bürgertum in Vienna and Budapest,
which in 1919 had had their fair dose of Bolshevism [especially in Hungary where the regime of
Belá Kun had driven the middle-classes over to the extreme Right]. Munich Society spoke
interminably about Hitler’s success around the political beer hall circuit. Couples like the
Bechsteins and the Lehmanns, as well as the well-to-do Hanfstangl siblings, “Putzi” and Erna,
spoke of Hitler’s charmed prowess. Hitler’s reputation was substantially strengthened in the eyes of
Munich Society through his display at his trial. His sentencing to six months imprisonment [a very
short sentence!] surprisingly gave him martyred status to his admirers such as Helené Bechstein.
The idea of Hitler as the “Bohemian Prince” with an intense love for German high-culture,
epitomized by his rousing displays over the character, work and anti-Semitism of his boyhood hero,
Richard Wagner, was reaffirmed by his adoring public.

Both Hess and Ilse pandered to this image of a “Bohemian Hitler.” They expressed an active
support for his apparent love of books, newspapers, art, and, of course, Wagner. Yet even Wagner,
whom the “Young Pretender” professed to know all about didn’t actually appreciate the full
dimensions of the master’s music, admiring in his operas the stage spectacle rather than the music –
a point often overlooked by historians. Hitler was at his deepest core too much of a barbarian and
closer in essence to the crude and harmful cretinism of his followers such as Hermann Esser [1900-
1981] and Julius Streicher [1885-1946], whom Hitler liked for their vulgarity and crude anti-
Semitism. Hess had to compete with this challenge, preferring to see Hitler’s ‘cultured side’ and
his potentiality as a great Messianic national figure. It had been Hess’ first goal to unseat the
position of Hermann Esser, who in his closeness to Hitler had acted virtually as an unpaid Private
Secretary.

139
Hess was interested in developing the myth of Hitler as the cultured son of Germany. He wanted to
portray the NSDAP leader as someone who had wrestled against him and had risen self-educated
and enlightened out of the gray mass. This was view Hess had encouraged Hitler in writing, in the
autobiographical sketches contained within Mein Kampf. The allusion to Hitler as a young
politician with a dedicated and educated outlook was one that belonged to the Hitler Myth. The
myth disguise Hitler’s weaker moments – especially his fits of depression that Hess had to come to
know in Landsberg prison. They disguised, too, his violent streak, one Hermann Esser and Julius
Streicher both applauded. The question may be asked why did Hess deliberately weave such a
myth, if Hitler weren’t all that he was cracked up to be? One may point to the influence of Hess’
poetry and to his romanticized views as a factor in his mythologizes Hitler’s character, which he
genuinely believed had the potentially of greatness and of being a true national messiah. He thus
placed expectations upon Hitler’s person, making him conscious of the fact that he had a historical
mission to live up to, if he were to save Germany.

Revealing the extent to which Hitler could alter the opinions of those against him belongs to the
myth of Hitler’s genius. Hess thinks Hitler possessed an amazing rhetoric that could reach out not
only across all social-class boundaries, but also touch those working within the establishment and
for the republic, such as a certain police officer about whom Hess writes in a letter to Ilse. Hess had
been travelling nationwide with Hitler, who was giving speeches to jam-packed auditoriums and
overfilling halls. One plain clothed police official instructed to watch Hitler’s movements and to
report upon what he said undergoes a personal transformation, which Hess is glad to comment upon
in a letter to Ilse dated 14th January, 1927. Hess reveals how Hitler through the force of his vitality
could silence critics, impress them and then even win them over to his side. Writing admiringly
how Hitler first deals with these critics Hess writes: “Zum Schluß hatte er sie.” He then explains
the transformation that occurs in the watching policeman. He tells Ilse: “Der bisher uns feindlich
gegenüberstehende leitende Polizeioffizier kam zum Schluß in heller Begeisterung zu mir, ich solle
ihn dem Tribunen empfehlen.” Hess adds gleefully: “er stimme ihm in jedem Satz zu, es sei ganz
glänzend gewesen u. eine große Überaschung: er habe sich in ihm einen kleinen Demagogen
vorgestellt.”[16]

It seems to Hess that here was a man of reason and intellect that he had discovered in Hitler. Hitler,
conscious of his own speaking abilities, nevertheless, benefited from Hess’ intuitive grasp of his
own characteristics. This was why he valued Hess as a dear intimate associate, one he almost to
show off publicly as his friend as well as being his close political accomplice. Hess feels his faith
in Hitler has been adequately justified, especially when he becomes witness to personal acts of
transformation that he sees undergoing in people, like the police officer, who heard Hitler speak for
the first time. It seems Hitler's personality in Hess’ eyes is the key to unlocking the heart of the
masses. It is with further joy that Hess writes of a transformation occurring throughout bürgerlich
audiences, which overcome their initial circumspect view of Hitler to become convinced Hitler
supporters. Yet Hitler spoke to them at personal cost. The NSDAP leader would after his 2½ hour
exertions appear exhausted and pale. He would rest his head silently. Hess informs Ilse
confidentially: “Aber der Tribun war fertig! Käsebleich, eingefallen, wankend, noch nach dem
Bad, den Kopf schweigend auf den Tisch gelegt, kaum mehr verständlich vor Heiserkeit.”[17] This
private view of Hitler was one Hess kept for himself and for Ilse. It wasn't to be made public, for
the idea of Hitler as a kind of superman supercharged was one that belonged to the Hitler Myth.

Hess' personal correspondence to Ilse gives the impression of himself and of Hitler as being figures
constantly as they carry out electioneering nationwide together. The NSDAP first attempted to
raise its profile in local elections such as the thüringische Landtagswahl, which occured on
30th January, 1927. The party won 3 seats.[18] Hess' extensive traveling was quite taxing on his

140
personal budget. Although Ilse had wealthy parents she was still dependent on his money. Her
political career ambitions had faltered as her husband maintained that the NSDAP was a male
orientated party. With his male condescending tone he tries to comfort her. He excuses his long
periods of not writing due to his electioneering at Hitler's side. From Weimar, on 23rd January,
1927, he writes to her, “Ist Dir allmählich die Zornesader wieder geschwollen ob des langen
Schweigens auf den langen Anlauf hin?” He seems to chastise her. He emphasizes the privileges
of his male orientated political environment. All she hears about is Hitler and of his triumphs.
Hess consoles her thus: “Sei beruhigt – böse Absicht auf Deinen Triumph war es nicht.” Their
problems of married life lives under the shadow of Hitler, as Hess in his joking way adds, “Ich
schrieb ja den ersten langen lieben Brief vorahnenderweise, dass in nächster Zeit es wohl wieder in
einer Hatz dahingeht oder der Tribun einen zur Gesellschaftsleistung beschlagnahmt.”[19]

Hess admits to an urgent necessity in recruiting funds especially among the sympathetic middle-
class supporter, who could afford to give more generously unlike the hard pressed NSDAP
functionary and working-class, often unemployed, SA man. Hess' personal finances reflected, too,
the general state of the party’s financial exhaustion; a battling theme of the party treasurer, Franz
Xaver Schwarz [1875-1947].[20] Hess condescendingly chastises Ilse once again, telling her:
“Schließlich sitzest Du blank da! Ich hoffe wenigstens, das Los war nicht etwa ein Gewinner, dass
ja sonst im letzten Gang das große Glück nicht darauf fallen könnte.” He adds: “Ich lege also für
alle Fälle 10 Mark bei, die wohl bis zu meiner Rückkehr für's Nötigste reichen. Ich denke, am 27.
Januar werden wir einkassieren.” He cannot resist a pun. His word play implies how the NSDAP
will cash dividends once the number of Landtagswahl seats the party will win becomes known.

From Weimar Hess has time to continue with his correspondence to his parents. He writes to his
father, whose has decided upon taking an interest in his political career. In reaching out to his
father he gladly tells him of Hitler's rise. Everything is conveyed in exaggerated fashion to help
weave the Hitler Legend. He tries to express his messiah-like impression of Hitler, referring to
what the leading astrologers in the bürgerlich press think. 1927 is foreordained, he claims, as one
that shall bear fruitful momentous changes. Hess chances upon, thanks to one of his NSDAP
acquaintances, Mutschmann, an astrological guide [possibly written by Elsbeth Ebertin who Hess
privately consulted]. He tells his father triumphantly, “dass in diesem Jahr [1927] in Deutschland
eine Änderung der politischen Lage eintreten werde, und alle Anzeichen sprächen dafür, dass der
Mann, der es schaffen werde, den unteren Schichten des Volkes entstamme.”[21] He thus
reinforces the myth of Hitler having emerged from the masses to a place of public prominence.

Irrespective of what astrologers thought Hess can see how Hitler possesses the personal charisma
and will to effect change. He tells his father how Hitler once said to him: “Sie werden sehen, Heß,
ich habe Recht! Wer soll's denn sonst auch machen?! Ich kenne doch die ganzen Politiker bei uns,
es ist doch nicht ein einziger wirklicher Kopf, kein einziges Genie darunter.”[22] The one
politician Hitler might have feared was Stresemann, whom Hitler didn't want to mention. If
Stresemann's foreign policy was to reap further success with more reparation alterations and
postponements and win in the public eye a greater sense of Germany's international rehabilitation,
then Hitler had every cause to worry about this great statesman. How Hitler measured genius was
by his own egotistical reverence for himself. This was lost on Hess, who was beguiled by Hitler's
sensational rhetoric about which Hess emphasizes a charm and beauty. With his ideal of Hitler
aimed specifically at his sympathetic father, Hess tells both his parents, “Ich wollte Ihr hättet einen
dieser Vorträge in Thüringen hören können! Seine Vorträge werden immer klarer, schärfer,
einfacher im Aufbau. Von unwiderlegbarer Logik. Dabei künstlerisch in den lebendigen Bildern,
oft ein aus dem Augenblick heraus schaffender Dichter in der Schönheit der Sprache.” Here was

141
affirmation of Hess‘ love for Schiller – the purity of language – coming to fruition in the artistic
relevance of Hitler’s rhetoric.

On the other hand Hess becomes determined to portray Hitler as a cool, thinking intellectual. He
feels this is necessary because a legend has to be portrayed as someone with interchangeable skills.
A leader who is seen as orientated with one particular gift cannot in Hess' view forge a legend.
Hess realizes he can’t depend solely on reiterating Hitler's dramatic passion for speaking. That
would present the NSDAP leader as too emotional. He wants to show Hitler as someone who can
think with intellectual brains. Here, to an extent, Hess is repeating Haushofer's criteria for a
nationalist leader of repute, who is intelligent enough to weigh up the different political scenarios.
The man who comes closest to Haushofer's definition of statesmanship is Stresemann – not Hitler.
Hess, having appropriated Haushofer's criteria applies it nevertheless to Hitler so as to impress his
father, writing, “Auf der anderen Seite ist er [Hitler] aber wieder so kühl überlegen, so ganz
Politiker größten Formats, Staatsmann. Er hält sich ganz fern von den kleinlichen Tagesfragen
(...).”[23]

Despite emphasizing what appears to him as Hitler's legendary status, Hess to his credit gives
priority mention to the party and its system of organization. He wants to show his father that Hitler,
too, must count on the party, for political organization and a firm party structure are necessary to
manage the electorate, bring in supporters and to administer party funds. Organization becomes
Hess' byword. He boasts to his father: “Übrigens mit unsere beste Ortsgruppe. Wir sind weitaus
die stärkste Partei am Ort, der fast nur aus der Henrichshütte besteht. Wenn unsere Leute nicht
wollen, hält keine andere Partei eine Versammlung ab, auch nicht die kommunistische.”[24] He is
determined to prove that the party can be seen as different from the others because it is an all
embracing movement, even to the extent, as he claims in exaggerated fashion, of bringing over to
its side former KPD members.[25] Such exultation is supposed to reflect the extraordinary
nationalist self will of the movement and even claims the leader of the party’s paramilitary wing,
the SA, was a former Communist, adding in his letter to his father: “Der Führer unserer SA ist ein
baumlanger blonder einstiger U-Boots-Matrose, der bis vor einem Jahr noch Führer von Rot-Front,
der Kampforganisation der Kommunisten, war.”[26] The OSAF, Pfeffer von Salomon, would have
perhaps politely smiled at such an accolade.

One gains the impression that Hess is informing his father with childish simplicity, based on an
assumption that Fritz Hess, away in Alexandria, knows virtually nothing about the German political
scene. That, of course, wouldn't have been the case as his father, an experienced businessman and
observer of political trends, would have known exactly what was going on in Germany, especially
through his reading of the German and foreign press, and would have known about the Rot-Front
organization. Hess appears to explain politics with an immaturity, which is condescending towards
his audience. This suits Hess sense of self-importance as he exaggerates and mythologizes Hitler's
name and the role of the NSDAP. In regard to Hitler's person he never desists from exaggerating
and he's always ready to emphasize Hitler's rhetorical brilliance. He writes, “Das erste Auftreten
(Hitlers) in Berlin war natürlich ein Ereignis erster Güte für ganz Berlin.”[27] Hess gives the
impression that Hitler is ready to conquer the Reich capital on simply his first outing. He also
reports encouragingly of the reactions of the nationalist bürgerlich press, commenting, “Die
Zeitungen aller Richtungen brachten Artikel und Bilder des Tribunen – beim Verlassen des
Kraftwagens usw. – auf der Titelseite. Nicht immer freundlich – aber man nahm doch Notiz, und
zwar sehr!”[28]

* * *

142
The attention Hitler was attracting was good for his political profile regardless of the fact that some
of the coverage he received was negative. His point, as he told his new Gauleiter for Berlin, Dr.
Joseph Goebbels [1897-1945], was to get noticed as much as possible. Goebbels had a vain
egocentric personality. He was ambitious and he shared with Hess certain romanticist notions about
the Garden suburb, new worker dwellings and comfortable office spaces for bürgerlich
professionals. He secured his new position, having split with the Strasser brothers, by making
friends with Hess and thus drawing himself closer to Hitler, whom he professed in his diary that he
loved [one exclamation reads: “Adolf Hitler, ich liebe Dich!”] On 24th November, 1927, he
recounts in his diary certain difficulties he’s having over electioneering issues. He emphasizes his
close contact to Hitler, whom he affectionately refers to as “Der Chef” [“The Boss”]. He adds:
“Heute morgen will ich abfahren, da begegnet mir auf der Treppe der Chef mit Heß.”[29] This
confirms in these early days of electioneering, in the provincial Länder and city municipal
elections, how Hess and Hitler were almost always seen together.[30]

Goebbels was terribly self-indulgent pursuing his bürgerlich tastes whenever he had the
opportunity; this was a far cry from the earlier socialism he had displayed at Otto Strasser’s side.
Together with Hess he expressed a vehement intellectual opposition against Strasser and his
younger brother, Grigor. Yet the wearisome struggle often left Goebbels wishing to seek solace in
his private world of writing. His diary and his novels thus became a vehicle for his political
energies just as, in earlier day, Hess’ poetry had assisted him if having the necessary resolve and
motivation for hard political struggles.[31] Goebbels imagined himself as a romanticist author.
Convinced of his own brilliance, he badgered the party's publisher Max Amann to help him publish
his trashy novels published. Goebbels believed he wrote good romantic fiction. He appears quite
engrossed in the writing of his novel Isidor throughout 1927. This reveals how he had other
ambitions at this stage in his career other than Hitler and the NSDAP.

Goebbels’ writing habits put him on a par with Hess, revealing how they shared a romanticized
bürgerlich outlook. Both men try to make the most out of their privileged backgrounds, using their
love for the arts as vehicle for their party propaganda. They had, however, certain illusions about
themselves. In 1927 there was no indication despite both men's hard working demeanor that Hitler
and the NSDAP would reap considerable electoral reward. Stresemann and the coalition of the
Reichsblock, festooned with the tradition and guiding hand of Prussian authority under Reich
President Hindenburg, appeared to be pursuing a successful revisionist course against the Entente.
Anglo-French differences had begun to appear and the British more than the French were willing to
resolve the Reparations Question. Public opinion in Britain felt that Germany had been too harshly
treated. All this boded well for Stresemann's 'Great Coalition', leaving Hitler and the NSDAP in the
doldrums. As a result of the Reich government's diplomatic and economic successes [it had notably
stabilized the Reich Mark], Goebbels and Hess felt that they had to exaggerate even more the
position of Hitler and the NSDAP. The most they could optimistically hope for was for small scale
provincial gains in Landtagswähle.

Most importantly, the NSDAP had resolved its internal difficulties. Here the Hitler Myth had
served its purpose well as the legendary qualities of Hitler’s unique style of leadership were used to
override factional party. This had been Hess' goal since 1924 when he had voluntarily given
himself up after the Munich Putsch to join Hitler in prison. Hess’ collaboration with Hitler and new
status as Personal Secretary rewarded Hess with a degree of respect and unrivalled status. This
impressed Goebbels, who wished to consolidate his own position within the party by sidling up to
Hess. He learned to imitate Hess' gift of exaggerating Hitler's talents. Not only did Goebbels assist
his own rise, but he also contributed in Hess’ eyes favorably to the Hitler Myth. The idea of
Hitler’s genius as the self-educated prodigal son was one exploited by Hess and Goebbels to win

143
over the influence of bürgerlich opinion and to prevent internal party opposition. Both men
enjoyed writing hard hitting polemics against their adversaries such as Otto Strasser, the Nazi
intellectual of the Left. Hess took the lead and Goebbels enthusiastically commented, “Heß schreibt
Dr. Strasser hat einen auf den Deckel bekommen wegen der Kritik des Wanderer.”[32] That was
the title of Goebbel's most recent novel, which surprisingly had been well received. This had
annoyed the intellectual Strasser.

Hess became especially charged with official diplomatic duties. He provided for important guests,
including Benito Mussolini [1883-1945], whom Hitler admired as the leading fascist dictator in
Europe. Nevertheless, when Hitler was sometimes away helping with his own self-promotion, Hess
would hold the reigns of party power. If Hitler was in Berlin, Hess would keep order in Munich –
which carried the propagandistic title, Die Hauptstadt der Bewegung[33] – and when Hitler had to
leave Berlin for Munich Hess would sometimes stay in the capital city to keep up appearances of
party leadership and solidarity. As Hitler and Hess could not always be together, this enabled
Goebbels to increase his own influence at Hitler's side. Favoritism became an important aspect of
Hitler's inner circle. On 4th February, 1928, Goebbels comments, “Heß treffe ich am
Donnerstagnachmittag. Er war in Berlin wegen des Chefs Besuch bei Benito.”[34] It is curious
how Goebbels expresses such informality in his political language. He was enjoying his new
position of power and used it effectively, especially to win over women, such as his unhappy
mistress, Tamara, who was guilt-ridden for having betrayed her husband and dependent on
Goebbels’ whims of fancy, which comforted her. [35]

When Goebbels wasn't busy flirting or writing he turned his attention to his political relationship
with Hess. He did this because he recognized that this was the surest way of gaining personal
access to Hitler. True, Hitler had personally recruited him as Gauleiter for Berlin, but this new
appointment hindered his idea of rapid promotion. He coveted a more centralized position. It was
hope to make such a success of his venture to Berlin that he would be able to draw Hitler away
from Munich to the Reich capital. In the meantime he wanted to be in two places at once: Berlin
and Munich. Munich was Die Hauptstadt der Bewegung while the capital city, a Social-Democrat
stronghold with some KPD dominant working-class suburbs, represented ‘Red Berlin’. His goal
was to attack the Left, incite it, stir up trouble and win the maximum attention among the bürgerlich
press – both nationwide and at provincial level – for the NSDAP. The vehicle for his assault was
his personal newspaper, Der Angriff. Having this paper and leading its editorials enabled for the
first time to enjoy certain advantages over Hess, whose administrative duties became more time
consuming and who was less able to circulate his personal views on account of not possessing a
paper. The main party organ, Der Völkische Beobachter would print reviews of speeches, but as it
was under the editing influence of Alfred Rosenberg [1893-1946] – something that was outside of
Hess’ control.

Although Goebbels was often dramatically poised in Berlin trying to stir clashes with Die Rot-Front
as well as with the SDP paramilitary organization Der Reichsbanner, he still on virtually a weekly
basis took the train to Munich to ingratiate himself with Hitler. To do this he used Hess to gain
access to Hitler's inner circle. For some time this had consisted of Hitler's former Landsberg prison
comrades, Emil Maurice [1897-?] and Hermann Esser. Maurice still had a favored position and
became the chauffeur of Hitler's Mercedes convertible; Esser found it more difficult, having to
recognize that his once personal influence over Hitler in an unofficial secretarial capacity was over,
since his position had been clearly taken over by Hess. As Hitler's Private Secretary Hess organized
Hitler's scheduling for the day, planning meetings, arranging appointments and booking Hitler's
system of travel, usually fast, fleeting visits to other cities by train. He was also responsible,
however, for Hitler's socialite time-table.

144
Berlin represented an important center for Hitler and the NSDAP. One of the most important tasks
entrusted to Goebbels was for his newspaper, Der Angriff, to incite mob disapproval of certain films
that the NSDAP didn't hold with. One of these was Lewis Milestone's Hollywood classic, All Quiet
on the Western Front [Im Westen Nicht Neues], which was a pacifist anti-war drama, featuring the
principal character, Paul Bauer, of Erich Maria Remarque's [1889-1970] award winning novel.
When the German version of the film was made it had an immediate impact. Made a year after the
introduction of sound in 1929 the film represented a technical as well as a dramatic masterpiece.
Long ushered in scenes culminating suddenly in massive artillery explosions, followed by
traversing camera shots of men being mercilessly cut down by machine gun fire to the audible rat-
ta-tat-tat brought back among cinema goers who had had firsthand experience of the war alarming
memories.

Heinz Pol, journalist for Die Vossische Zeiting, wrote, “Der furchtbare Widersinn des Krieges, er
wird am sichtbarsten in den großen Schlachtszenen dieses Film, die zu dem technisch
Grandiosesten und in seiner Wirkung Nachhaltigsten gehören, was wir bisher im Tonfilm erlebt
haben.”[36] The film touched a raw nerve in the German nationalist psyche, as Reich President
Hindenburg refused to acknowledge it publicly. The municipal authorities in Berlin continued
showing the film at the Kino-Palast Mozartsaal on Nollendorfplatz. This was to Goebbels
advantage. He organized SA demonstrations that marched in evening torch lit processions to the
cinema, where they distributed leaflets and beat up anyone who didn't agree with them. During one
of the film's screening they released hundreds of white mice in the cinema auditorium and caused
panic and mayhem. The intention to simulate female hysteria was orchestrated by sympathetic
women to the movement who screamed and encouraged the breakup of the film. Men, who tried to
keep a calm demeanor and wanted to supervise crowd control were beaten up by the SA.[37]

The NSDAP opposition to All Quiet on the Western Front was a success. As a result of the
disturbances Reich President Hindenburg was drawn more into the affair and the municipal
authorities were instructed to close the Nollendorfplatz cinema for several days. The film was in
the meantime withdrawn from circulation. Although Hollywood films were often criticized by Der
Angriff for being too decadent, this one they attacked ferociously seeing it as a personal attack on
German honor. Other films, even from Hollywood, were sometimes regarded favorably, especially
song and dance dramas, but the party was critical of feminist movies where the male lead played a
subordinate role to the heroine, as was sometimes the case in Barbara Stanwyk's movies. The most
admired female actress remained Leni Riefenstahl [1902-2003] on account of her outward bound
character in Wolfgang Papst's mountain dramas, which struck a chord with NS-aestheticism.

Cinema visits organized by Hess often included Hitler and just a few comrades. They would go in
fast cars, watch the movie of their choice[38] incognito and then return for discussion, tea and cake
in Hitler's private apartments. Sometimes, to make the outing more charming, Ilse Proehl was
permitted to accompany her husband. As well as cinema treats, there were fast drives to the
country. Hess recalls, “Heut' ist Sonntag. Ich will nachher mit dem Tribunen, Maurice und Ilse
Proehl bei Rückforth – ein neuentdecktes Lokal in der Neuauserstrasse.”[39] On another occasion a
visit to the cinema was organized to see the Hollywood silent-movie Ben Hur. This was a film that
really caught Hess' interest. He was, as has already been shown, very interested in the ancient
world and epochal history and this had helped to activate Hitler's interest in this theme. After
having visited Berlin's Egyptian Museum,[39] they now had the opportunity through the Ben Hur
film to see a celluloid image of the Roman Empire with exciting chariot races. They were,
however, critical of the movie because its hero was Jewish. Thus the film represented a challenge
for both Hitler and Hess. Surprisingly, Hess liked the movie, but did express disdainful remarks as
to the motive of the film, which he found too sympathetic towards the Jews. It raised the question

145
of cultural anti-Semitism. Here, in an instance, cultured German cinema goers could see good Jews
and a Jewish hero, Ben Hur. The film was warmly received, but Hess ultimately saw it as a Jewish
propaganda film rather than as historical entertainment. He tells his parents, “Gestern war ich mit
ihm (Hitler) im Ben Hur Film. Er ist teilweise sehr gut, wenn auch dazwischen kitschige kolorierte
Bilder kommen. Im übrigen ist er ein sehr geschickter Propagandafilm für das Judentum, wobei
nicht mal vor so groben Geschichtsfälschungen zurückgeschreckt wurde, dass die Römer Christus
ans Kreuz schlugen und die guten Juden es vergeblich zu verhindern suchten.”[40]

The film, Ben Hur, characterized the telling of history through the medium of mass entertainment in
a way Hess couldn't approve of. The aesthetic film sequences of sympathetic Jews trying to help
Christians against Roman power fascinated and repelled him at the same time. The film, as does
the original novel, suggests the idea of there being Jewish Christians. This concept was rejected
totally by Hitler and Hess. Hess regarded Jesus not as a Jew, but as a crucified Roman Christian,
implied by his term “Römer Christus.”[41] At the time of the film Hess was already dabbling with
the “Gottglauben” of Die Deutschen Christen,[42] which had set themselves up officially as the
quasi-religious sect of the NSDAP from 1931 onwards. In their view Jesus wasn't the Messiah of
the Jews, but an Aryan super hero more akin to Germanic tales and sagas. Hitler, whom Hess had
on previous occasions described as “tief religiös,”[43] also subscribed to the notion of an Almighty
God, but refrained from theological discussion on the origins of the Messiah. Hess came to his
rescue over difficult religious subject-matter by encouraging Hitler to adopt a quasi-religious
Messiah-like image for himself, so that the idea of savior was expressed not in terms of the
redemption of mankind, but in terms of the salvation of the German people from the international
threat posed by Jewish plutocrats.

Hess would welcome NS-films about mischievous Jewish plutocracy, especially in the banking and
finance world and would be supportive of strong NS-anti-Semitic films such as Jud Süß. The
filming of the Rothschild story, however, was to upset him as he became engaged in a ongoing
argument with Goebbels over the drawbacks of the film. As far as both men were concerned film
remained a very important medium. Later, within a year of coming to power, the aesthetic image of
Nazi political power was captured by Leni Riefenstahl's powerful filming of the 1934 party rally in
Nuremberg, Der Triumph des Willens.[44] It was to capture Hitler and the top Nazi leaders in
aesthetic and quasi-religious poise and promoted the Hitler cult to everyone's satisfaction within the
movement. The film still stands as a propaganda masterpiece of the Nazi era. Yet the yearning for
aesthetic images first began with Hess' and Hitler's reactions to the aesthetic accomplishments of
the Jewish-Hollywood movie Ben Hur.[45] Aestheticism meant an artistic, naturalistic image with
a spiritual resonance. Riefenstahl was to achieve this further in her films Volker Feste, Volker
Spiele.[46]

It soon became evident to both Hess and Goebbels that Hitler had to be able to relax and have a
socialite life in order to be replenished for the titanic national struggle ahead, which would involve
much political planning and campaign strategies.[47] Hess and Goebbels felt they could nurture
Hitler’s private sentiments through cinema visits, evening dinner parties and outings at the
weekends, as well the interminable visits and consumption of tea and cake at Hitler’s favorite
haunts such as Café Heck.[48] Both men believed they recognized certain strains in Hitler because
of the incessant building of his political and Napoleonic image, festooned with the attributes of the
Hitler Legend. Hitler had to relax from his own political intensity. Hess had previously remarked
how it had worried him to see Hitler soaked through and numbed into a pitiful silence after a 2½
hours intensive speech.[49] No one in their right mind could continue at such punishing levels of
self-endurance as Hitler on speech evenings. Hess sometimes saw the exasperating effects of
Hitler's toiling commitment to the NSDAP cause. Hess felt obligated at such moments to protect

146
Hitler. In his pause for self-reflection he tells himself he will never let Hitler organize two political
meetings on top of one another again, writing, “Ich tue es nie wieder, so knapp hintereinander zwei
Versammlungen anzusetzen (...).”[50]

The safeguarding of the Hitler Legend – in other words the infallibility of the man – had to be
maintained. A kind of electrical charge was induced through the course of a typical working day
with dramatic phone calls, appearances and discussions. The theme was always politics. Goebbels
gives an impression of the rash thinking and speed of events unfurling, as he writes: “Heute morgen
los. Scheußliche Fahrt. Student gelesen, geschrieben. Berlin: der Reichstag wird heute aufgelöst.
Die DNVP gespalten. Prost! Eben ruft Heß an: morgen treffe ich den Chef. Nun bin ich müde.
Gleich sehe ich noch Tamara. Das ist Leben: Konzentration. Verve. Energie.”[51] One cannot
help thinking how erratic Goebbels' mode of living was, with his bürgerlich indulgences, his
novels, mistresses and political radicalism. Yet it was symptomatic of Nazi acolytes, including
Hess, to be seen as if they were always busy and just one step away from the point of destiny.

Throughout the insignificant days of Nazi power the self-importance and nationalist mission of the
party was constantly drawn up. Responsible for this were Hess and Goebbels who worked in
tandem in vitalizing Hitler's energy. Their lives sped along in cars and meetings. Everything
revolved around where Hitler's chauffeur, Emil Maurice, would drive them next. Sometimes
important guests within the movement would arrive. One of these was the widow of Dr.
Scheubner-Richter, who had fallen at Hitler's side on the 9th November, 1923. She became a very
important icon figure within the movement.[52] Hess discovered to his chagrin that Scheubner-
Richter represented as a fallen martyr a significant part of the Hitler Legend. The deceased lawyer
belonged to the highly esteemed faithful who had given his life for the cause. In truth Hitler's
lawyer-friend had recognized the futility of the Putsch and wasn't in favor of marching that day, but
he had done so out of personal friendship. The bullet that killed him had perilously come close to
Hitler. It became inscribed in the Hitler Legend how the eminent Dr. and lawyer had contributed to
saving Hitler's life. For that reason his window was always honored. Goebbels comments on one
occasion, “Den Abend mit Heß, Hoffmann und Frau Dr. Scheubner-Richter zusammen. Ernste
Debatten. Heß ist ganz begeistert. Hitler und er wollen nach Berchtesgaden nachkommen.”[53]

Berchtesgaden was the summer retreat in the Bavarian Alps overlooking Hitler's homeland,
Austria. There Hitler felt he had his greatest and most successful thoughts as he became in tune
with the landscape of mountains, billowing clouds and evening sunsets. He had a summer
residence built there out of party funds. This had been a task Hess had assigned to his own Personal
Secretary, Martin Bormann, who had already proved himself as a financial wizard for the SA
Hilfskasse, a kind of party pension fund. Hitler's presence in Berchtesgaden along with his inner
circle became inscribed into the Hitler Legend, as it became circulated how Hitler the man of
destiny could be alone with his greatest thoughts. That Hess left with Hitler for this mountain
retreat so soon after being in the serious company of Frau. Dr. Scheubner-Richter, reveals Hess'
enviousness of the widow and of the part her husband had played in Hitler's life. She promoted her
husband's memory with such seriousness that this aggravated Hess. He wanted to forge his own
story as part of the Hitler Legend without rivals; and without the legacy of martyrs such as
Scheubner-Richter.

When Hitler was present in Munich things continued fast and furiously. Goebbels captures the
speed and spontaneity of unfurling events. He used the opportunity of outings to draw closer to
Hitler than Hess would have wanted. In one diary entry Goebbels comments:

147
“Draußen steht das Auto: Hitler, Heß, Proehl. Hinein und in den strahlenden Sonntagmorgen. Immer näher
rückt der Watzmann in leutender Klarheit. Hitler erzählt und schwärmt. Er ist ein lieber, reiner Mensch, ein
Kind.” [54]

In this instance, he reckoned as Hess had discovered in Landsberg prison that Hitler could reveal an
innocent childish nature in need of protection. Both men became conscious of protecting Hitler's
vulnerability from the public gaze. In private they encouraged Hitler in his childish fantasies. They
pandered to his emotional needs and made sure he had appropriate company. They would wine and
dine and visit historic places. Augsburg was a popular choice, not being too far from Munich.
Goebbels comments, “Im Auto nach Augsburg. Heß, Maurice und Berthold begleiten den Chef. In
Augsburg die alte Begeisterung.”[55]

It is curious how frequent Hess' name appears in Goebbels' diary entries around 1926/27. These
reveal how much Goebbels admired Hess. He spent long evenings with him and Hitler trying to
decide on political strategies in numerous Landtagswähle. One evening they met up with Gregor
Strasser, who, like Goebbels, had previously questioned Hitler's leadership and had campaigned for
a revision of the party program. Hitler had objected, but recognized Strasser's rhetorical gifts.
Strasser could speak “mit erheblicher Überzeugungskraft von der 'antikapitalistischen
Sehnsucht.”[56] To outwit his arch rival Hitler persuaded him to split from his intellectual brother,
Otto, and come over to his side. He rewarded him with the post of NSDAP Organizationsleiter.
This meant he was responsible for party organization in Landes-, Kreis-, and Orts-gruppen
throughout the country and represented an important personality in the structural set up of the
NSDAP. It became important for Hess to have to liaise with him. He did so by pressing home his
personal advantage whenever Strasser was invited to Hitler's inner circle. Hess made sure Strasser,
still a radical socialist, felt uncomfortable with bürgerlich etiquette and bürgerlich small talk to
which the inner circle was accustomed. Hess would also use Ilse as organizer of the evenings in
these days of political prominence for the Hess couple before the “Geli Tragedy.” Goebbels would
write of how the Hess and Ilse organized evenings successfully, commenting on one occasion, “Mit
Heß und Strasser bei Fraulein Proehls zum Abendessen. Gespräch über die Frau. Ich bin der
radikalste. Vom neuen Typ. Der Mensch als Revolutionär. Ludendorff ist kein Revolutionär. Der
neue Typ der Disziplin und Askese. Strasser kann nicht mehr mit. Dafür ist er Bajuware. Fraulein
Proehl und Heß kapieren alles. Im strömenden Regen heim!”[57]

Goebbels recognized that for the political scene to become radicalized one had to emphasize one's
revolutionary commitment.[58] Hitler, Hess and Ilse liked this approach. It was Hess' view that the
political scene should be at every opportunity radicalized through intensified electioneering. Here
the party had Strasser to look to, but Strasser stood for a different kind of strategy, which conflicted
with Hitler’s.[59] He advocated the theory of the 'Politics of Confrontation,' which meant
radicalizing the work place as much as the streets.[60] He emphasized SA paramilitary activity and
wanted to choke the republic into paralysis. His brother's ideals had emphasized:

“Wir empfanden und empfinden den Nationalsozialismus demgemäß seiner ganzen Wesenheit nach als
ebenso feindlich dem kapitalistischen Bürgertum wie dem internationalen Marxismus und sehen seine
Aufgabe in der Überwindung beider (...)” [61]

Hitler recognized along with Hess that the moment had not arrived for confronting and
manipulating the bürgerlich-capitalist economy. The fight against bürgerlich institutions and
parties was to be subtle; against Marxism and the KPD it was to receive direct confrontation. To
infuriate employers through strikes when the economy was just recovering didn't seem an
appropriate strategy and, furthermore, Hitler had to be wary of pursuing a political course that

148
threatened parliamentary democracy too directly. He was, Hess reminds us, watched by the police
and in certain Länder was still banned from public speaking.

Within the discussion of his private circle Hitler evolved the strategy of allying himself to the
bürgerlich-Right and the aristocratic-reactionary conservatives of the DNVP and DVP. This hadn't
been a planned strategy. Hess had momentarily persuaded Hitler that he could through the force of
his personality bring over disaffected bürgerlich voters to the NSDAP. However, the mystique of
the Hitler Legend wasn't enough. It alone couldn't draw vast numbers of the bürgerlich-Right over
to the NSDAP without first immobilizing the electoral support for the DNVP and DVP, which had
strengthened themselves around the iconic figure of Hindenburg. Hitler realized that the
Hindenburg Legend was greater than his own. The only way to challenge it was by discreetly
allowing the NSDAP to permeate the nationalist politics of the bürgerlich-Right, although not to the
extent of alienating Strasser and the socialist stalwarts in the party bureaucracy. For reasons that
shall become clear both Hess and Goebbels supported Hitler's entering the Volksbegehren, a
nationalist alliance with the DNVP/DVP.

4.3 Volksbegehren: 1928/29

The DNVP/DVP coalition became their own worst enemy as they threw away a tactically strong
hand. Their first mistake was to alienate Hindenburg over the “Panzerkreuzer 'A' Affair.” This was
to do with the projected construction of a new kind of battle cruiser with a displacement of 10,000
tons. It had been the brainchild of innovative designers commissioned for the navy by Grand
Admiral Erich Raeder. The “Panzerkreuzer 'A' Affair” represents the first big dent in the legendary
status of Hindenburg. For his first two years he had cordially carried out his head of state activities
without transgressing his constitutional position. He decided, however, that the construction of the
Panzerkreuzer, to be named Deutschland, had to go ahead for the sake of German prestige. He
insisted that the SPD-led “Great Coalition,” which had come to power in 1928, readjust the Reich
budget appropriately so as to make available the necessary funds for the ship's construction. This
represented an unconstitutional act as Hindenburg applied personal pressure on Reich Chancellor
Otto Mueller, who wanted to postpone the ship's construction in favor of increasing SPD plans for
unemployment and welfare benefit. The national conservatives, harboring their own illusions of
restoring Germany's former imperial greatness, worsened the debacle by openly criticizing the
building of the ship. They criticized Hindenburg and the government and intensified the nationalist
furor to a radical pitch.

Responsible for the escalation of the crisis was the new DNVP leader, Alfred Hugenberg [1865-
1951], a media tycoon who had formerly acquired his wealth in heavy industry. His appearance
was that of a 19th Century oddity not quite in keeping with the modern era. He wore a frock coat
and tails in imitation of an aristocratic-reactionary stereotype and sported round rimmed spectacles
and an old fashioned Kaiser-style mustache with side whiskers. Yet he didn't speak as a
distinguished gentleman, but more as a barrack room sergeant major. Hugenberg was of great
disservice to the national conservative cause. The DNVP's previous leader, Count Westarp, had
been a man of refined demeanor. Hugenberg was coarse and induced Westarp's removal through an
engineered press campaign. The ambitious new DNVP leader decided he would raise the spectacle
of Germany's honor. What he did though was simply split the conservatives amongst themselves,
leaving the electorate confused over the “Panzerkreuzer 'A' Affair.” There were those who wanted
to go back to the traditional line held by Count Westarp. Others were carried away by their own
allusions of grandeur. Hitler and the NSDAP encouraged these and welcomed the dissension
among conservative ranks.

149
In some ways Hitler demanded that Strasser's “Politics of Confrontation” be partly put to the test.
What that meant was helping nationalist factions within the Reichstag to mobilize against the Reich
government and the republic. In May, 1928, the NSDAP won twelve Reichstag seats. Small and
insignificant, the party hoped to encourage others in their nationalist illusions and bring Germany to
the point of political paralysis. This was a method contrary to the one Strasser proposed who had
wanted to attack capitalist Bürgertum; not work with it. Strasser had wanted the NSDAP to
increase its electoral representation through provocative working-class action. This had clearly
failed with the outcome of the May elections. Nevertheless, Hitler applied his technique of
confrontation through a double edged alliance with the national conservatives in the so-called
Volksbegehren. Hugenberg decided to enter the arrangement and through his media empire bind
Hitler to his person. The first act of the Volksbegehren was to hold a Reichstag motion against the
Reich government's attitude to the “Panzerkreuzer 'A'.”

Goebbels captures with sarcastic wit the period of Nazi political success through the
Volksbegehren. His ambitions aimed first and foremost at being a literary talent rather than
becoming Hitler's Propaganda Minister. His literary ambition remained unfulfilled, but it is from
his diary that we gain insight into the dramatic unfurling events of the Nazi rise to power. We sense
the bite of his sarcasm and the outpourings of hyper nervous energy that drives the NSDAP towards
greater heights. Commenting on the SPD blocking tactics against the nationalist veto over the
“Panzerkeuzer 'A'” Affair, he writes: “Der Reichstag hat den Panzerkreuzerantrag der SPD
abgelehnt. Daher ist die Regierung noch einmal gerettet.” He adds, proscribing to the NSDAP a
sense of destiny to itself through speaking of an ineluctable 'We': “Wir haben auch gegen den
Antrag gestimmt, weil ein ja keinen Zweck gehabt hätte und die Regierung erhalten geblieben
wäre.”[62] Elsewhere Goebbels comments on Hitler's meteoric rise and public speaking. The
NSDAP leader had learned to give his most effective speeches at night. He would usually arrive
late and let the air of expectancy amidst the gathered audience almost choke until he would appear.
This was all part of the stylizing of the Hitler Legend. Goebbels records on 17th November, 1928:
“Um 8 Uhr wird der Sportpalast polizeilich gesperrt. 16 000 Menschen. Eine Überfülle.” He then
describes Hitler's arrival: “8. 20h kommt Hitler. Unendlicher Jubel. Musik. Die Fahnen
marschieren ein. Dann spricht Hitler. 1½ Stunden. Eine seiner besten Reden. Immer wieder von
Beifallsstimmen unterbrochen. Zum Schluß ein Orkan. Alle stehen auf. Deutschland über
alles.”[63]

Goebbels captures the private atmosphere, too, when Hitler retreats away from public adulation.
Until Geli Raubl's death Hitler spent evenings with her and selected guests with the Hess couple as
hosts. Goebbels recalls, “Wir sitzen bis tief in die Nacht noch alle zusammen, der Chef, Epp, von
Mücke, Heß, seine Frau, die Geli und ich. Der Chef ist ganz glücklich. Er lacht mich immer
wieder an, und dann beglückwünschen wir uns.” He uses the occasion to express politics with his
sarcastic tongue. He attacks the SDP politician, Wilhelm Hillebrand for having raised vociferous
objections against the NSDAP. Goebbels wishes his political enemy good riddance and writes of
an expected victory for the NSDAP. He sees no more disunity; just the road to political victory,
writing, “Fahr wohl Hillebrandt. Es nutzt nichts mehr, keine Broschüre, keine Verleumdung, kein
Verrat kann uns mehr im Siegeslauf hemmen.”

Goebbels deceives himself. The idea of an inevitable Nazi electoral victory is far from the case. In
these early years of 1928 the party was just beginning to make inroads into the nationalist arena.
Far sighted politicians on the Left couldn't have anticipated the speed of the Nazi rise, for there was
no real indication of its inevitability. When the NSDAP finally were in power people like Goebbels
and Hess could look back retrospectively to earlier pronouncements seeing in them the sense of the
inevitable. The Nazi leaders became carried away with their own illusions and busied themselves in

150
a narrow-minded electioneering world. In this climate of political fatalism – the belief in inevitable
electoral victory – Hess and Goebbels sought collaboration and intensified their efforts at party
organization. Goebbels writes around this time, “Nachmittags, da ich zu Hause sitze, ruft Heß an.
Wir treffen uns auf eine Stunde im Rheingold. Der Chef ist krank. Magengeschichte. Er sollte
sich mehr schonen, wie wir alle.” This reference to “Magengeschichte” (stomach cramps) suggests
how much Hitler suffered under nervous strain because of the intense political will – of all or
nothing – that dominated his thinking. This was supposed to be an invocation of the Nietzsche-like
political will towards victory. The concept of the “will to power” Hitler had encountered in his
talks with the nationalist sage, Housten Stewart Chamberlain, whom he and Hess had visited in his
home in Bayreuth several times before his death in 1927. Chamberlain had written the anti-Semitic
historical-philosophical work Die Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhunderts; an exuberant Wagnerian, he
had married into the Wagner family. When Hitler and Hess called by they listened respectively.
The scene, however, was preposterous: Chamberlain shaking, mostly mumbling incoherently from
his armchair, while his attentive listeners pretended to have heard profundity. Neverthless, but the
elderly self-styled cultural philosopher and historian was able to tell him that the idealist was
always victorious because he had belief in the idea, actualized it in his mind and transformed it into
actual reality.[64]

With this belief in the “will to power” Hess and Goebbels set about their tasks respectively. Both
were astute propagandists. Hess had learned the power of propaganda through an unexpected route
– through the experience of emotional manipulation in his letters to Milly Kleinmann and Gret
Georg. He thus learned the art of manipulation independent of Hitler. Hitler developed in contrast
a propagandistic talent out of an instinctive awareness for the spoken word. This is what made him
such a powerful nationalist speaker on the podium and caused yearning admirers among the
bürgerlich public. Goebbels represented a kind of synthesis of Hess' and Hitler's approach to
propaganda in that he possessed both written and oratorical talents. Hess' gifts remained largely
written. His speeches were few and only as Hitler's Stellvertreter did he speak more widely, as
seen in Der Triumph des Willens. The film's enduring images of closed ranks marching, of
orderliness, of inspiring speeches from Hitler and applause, of young faces and nationalist solidarity
remain a powerful example of the aesthetic qualities of 1930s propaganda film making. This film
did more than anything else to arouse the allure of the Nazis amidst the young and the ambitious
and impresses the older generation with a sense of spiritual renewal. The art of propaganda as a
film medium transcended the other propaganda mediums of the spoken word and of written
electioneering pamphlets. The film came, however, at a time when the NSDAP was consolidating
its political power from a position of strength. In the party's years of struggle reliance had to be on
the spoken and written word. Hess felt the written word to be more effective when dealing with a
bürgerlich public, believing in a certain rationale for the NSDAP that didn't necessarily rely on
straight forward political emotionalism as was the case with speeches. Hess' arguments had much
to do with his upbringing as a son of the Bildungsbürgertum.[65] He found that he could make
people believe in the force of the NSDAP argument by appealing to their sense of reason. He made
promises and offered a vision of a resurgent Germany, of an economy back on its feet and of the
nation working together.

The significance of Hess' arguments weren't lost on his parents. Fritz Hess and Klara Hess were
living in Alexandria and kept a firm eye on political developments in Germany.[66] Both had
always been keen newspaper readers and they charted Hitler's rise and that of the NSDAP with
interest. They realized that this had implications for their eldest son, whose profile at Hitler's side
and in the Nazi hierarchy had risen. Unknown to them Hitler was indolent and only enjoyed
periods of sustained effort. He needed Hess to arrange his daily schedule, to book him into
meetings and arrange travel arrangements. These kind of things were beyond Hitler himself, who

151
didn't care for the small details. Hess found he possessed the appropriate skills for bureaucracy and
organization. He enjoyed the pivotal role of organization that Hitler had given him. Without Hess'
contribution Hitler's daily routine in the years up until 1931/32 would have collapsed. Hess also
kept an eye on electioneering, making sure that the written word for pamphlets and brochures for
potential bügerlich voters wasn't off-putting, too long or too ideological.

The ideological foundation of the NSDAP Hess concealed from his parents and the party's
bürgerlich voters. This was based on a racial ideal of perfection for the Aryan race and on anti-
Semitism. The development of the German Aryan racial community and the resolving of the
Jewish Question went hand in hand as far as Hess was concerned, as one in his view couldn't be
developed without resolving the other. He argued that if the Jewish Question wasn't resolved then
the German race would fall further into a state of decline. If the German race racially improved and
grew towards perfection then the Jewish race would be forced to the periphery, isolated and
persecuted. This was the narrow world view that dominated his thoughts. He was committed to the
building of a racial community and to a healthy development of German youth. Hess' future
thoughts looked forward to the creation of this ideological Brave New World.

Certain controversies exists as to what extent the intent and planning of a racial community,
phrased in the NSDAP jargon as the Volksgemeinschaft, was anything but “window dressing” and
just a combination of empty ideological rhetoric. Wolfgang Benz describes the idea of the
Volksgemeinschaft as an envisaged ideal of society “mit ständestaatlichen, hierarchischen und
egalisierenden Vorstellungen” and thinks it was based on a rather empty headed Sozialromantik.
This gives the impression that the romanticism of a racial visionary such as Hess would have been
too impractical and based on a promise of equality for the masses that couldn't be delivered. This
view of the Third Reich leaves it unveiled to the reader as empty, hollow and with unfulfilled
promises and certainly without much organization.[67]

It is argued here that the image of the Third Reich depends wholly on how it is perceived whether
mechanistically with a clear division of state and society or whether it was perceived and
encouraged as a racial organism with autonomous bodies at professional, intellectual and
bureaucratic and administrative levels functioning under the aegis of the NSDAP. Hess, it is
argued, is the architect of not a mechanistic and conventional structure of state and society, but of
a society as a racial organism with an outer casing of codified racial laws. One may see Hess as the
most influential figure is this conception of the Third Reich.[68] However, had to follow a course
of development with which he had to find the right working partner. For much of the 1920s and
into the early part of the 1930s he was close to Joseph Goebbels. His collaboration with him
represents the central ideological axis he held before 1933. After then Hess enjoyed a greater
ideological range, stronger and much more varied with connections to major Nazi Reichsleiters,
Gauleiters, all party personnel, state officials and state employees, to industry, to agriculture, to
engineering, building and construction and to the armaments industry and the military. The central
coordinative body was Hess' personal staff to be known as Das Amt des Stellvertreter des
Führers.[69]

4. 4 Hess-Goebbels Partnership

The collaboration between Hess and Goebbels served two different purposes. Hess attended to
propaganda with the aim of winning over bürgerlich voters and developed a specific party rationale
for this purpose. He promised them a revisionist program, deluding them into thinking that the
NSDAP stood for traditional views and moral standards. He didn't reveal the truth about the social
and economic utopia he had in mind in terms of transforming Germany into a vigorous racial

152
organism based on the ideas of Stände. These Stände, a division of society into professional guilds,
would be self-regulatory under the aegis of the NSDAP.[70] Hess placed emphasis on the
development of fields of expertise. He advocated a strong work ethic, but not in fulfillment of
either a Lutheran or Prussian-German work ethic, but one for the benefit of the racial ideal. The
racial ideal preached equality for those who were of Aryan blood in the sense that merit and work
effort would under a Stände system be rewarded. Hess realized that neither his parents nor
bürgerlich voters were ready for such a racial transformation of society. In terms of the Jewish
Question he realized that they weren't ready for this either so he deceptively watered down his anti-
Semitism so that it would temporarily and, in accordance with the sensitivities of bürgerlich
cultural anti-Semitism, be directed mainly against so-called Jewish plutocracy abroad in the western
democracies, which he saw as part of a Jewish conspired capitalist encirclement of Germany.[71]

Goebbels differed from Hess in that he displayed more Machiavellian traits. He was also peculiarly
vain and his diary is littered with references to his own literary pursuits and self-importance as a
Bohemian writer. Typical of Goebbels' self-induced moments, whereupon he beams in delight as
his apparent literary success, he tells himself, admittedly with some begrudged recognition for his
editor [Alfred-Ingemar Berndt]: “Mein neues Buch durchstudiert. Die Vorworte von Müller sind
gänzlich unzugänzlich. Ich lasse sie nochmal von Berndt überarbeiten.”[72] His fastidious
attention for his own supposed brilliance characterizes Goebbels’ pseudo-Romanticism and
Bohemianism. His political agenda – to be close to Hitler and to be famous – he pursued only when
his literary interests temporarily uninterested him, but he always returned to seeking immortality
through the written word. His legacy prevails in published form [Elke Fröhlich, (Hrsg.), Die
Tagbücher von Joseph Geobbles. Aufzeichnungen 1923-1941], although not as he intended as the
post-war criminal of infamous repute!

Goebbels shares the same love of Bohemian literary culture as Hess [who we have seen wrote
poetry]. Despite his yearning to have literary recognition [he wrote continuously, beginning a new
novel once he had been satisfied with the previous one] he hated intellectual literary criticism, was
scathing of critics [especially of those who dared to write a book review of any of his work] and
remained steadfastly cold and impassive against the intellectual world, which appeared to him as
too 'clever', too intellectual and too Jewish. Hence, Goebbels' hatred stemmed from his
fastidiousness for literary recognition which then blew over into an expressions of ideological
rhetoric against the Left, Marxism and Jews, so in a curious ways his literary pursuits were not at all
that far removed from his ideological brand of politics – just as Hess' poetry, in writing of “Racial
Man” and of “Racial Woman” reflected his own political agenda.

Furthermore, what interested Goebbels, just like Hitler, was the pursuit of political power.
Goebbels wasn't a Bohemian idealist, but one who hated the Bohemian literary set [despite
paradoxically courting it] and wished to conquer it just like he hated and wished to conquer the
republic's political system. Goebbel's political objective was to get noticed as quickly as possible
and not to engage in any fancy intellectualism or idealism, even of the racial variety. In this respect
his political motivations were based on hatred, envy and attention to get noticed through immediate
and spontaneous political action. Hess by contrast was the thoughtful idealist and a Romantic with
a program: namely to achieve a genuine National Socialist community [the NS-Volksgemeinschaft
of the future]. This difference between the two men – one idealistic and the other superficial and
vain – was a conflict of idealism versus political action and Goebbels represented the latter. This
meant his ideological partnership to Hess would only last the duration of the struggle for power.
When Nazi power was eventually attained, Hess recognized the ultimate unreliability in Goebbels'
self-seeking character, which on account of its indifferent egotism left Hess to founder in the

153
quagmire of internal party strife in 1932. Not till Hess appointed Martin Borman as his Private
Secretary on 1st July, 1933, did Hess feel comfortable in a working ideological relationship.

There were a number of political themes emerging out of Nazi routine during the years of struggle
before 1933. Themes such as: how the party should deal with the war veterans’ organization, Der
Stahlhelm; or how to proceed with the Volksbegehren. Such matters caused Hess and Goebbels to
focus on a daily tactical routine. The aim of their strategy was to win an overall electoral majority.
Until this was achieved daily tactics, weekly tactic and monthly tactics etc. had to be seriously
altered, updated and managed. The NSDAP alliance with the bürgerlich-Right was a tenuous
arrangement. As long as the NSDAP electoral position was weaker their bürgerlich partners in the
Volksbegehren would strive for the upper hand. The bürgerlich-Right was prepared to tolerate
Hitler as long as he was useful to them, but were willing to drop him if the NSDAP faction in the
Reichstag would lose out heavily in national and local elections. Hess and Goebbels worked
together to make sure they kept up the electoral impetus, especially in local elections
(Landtagswähle). They labored tirelessly. Goebbels' diary reveals the extent of their working
relationship: “Die Arbeit ist getan. Gestern bin ich fertig geworden. Brief von Heß.
Stahlhelmfrage geklärt. Freundschaftliches Nebeneinander, aber keine Rede davon, dass wir die
insinnige Politik des Bundes mitmachen. Vor allem nicht das Volksbegehren.”[73]

Der Stahlhelm was a nationalist paramilitary organization founded by the former officer von
Seldte.[74] The organization was originally conceived as a patriotic ex-serviceman's organization,
but it soon began to take on the hallmarks of a nationalist political party.[75] It joined the
nationalist foray into the Volksbegehren over the “Panzerkreuzer 'A'” Affair. It joined the SA in
joint parades and marching. Its leader warmly praised Hitler and maneuvered himself closer to the
idea of National Socialism. Der Stahlhelm was a useful ally for the NSDAP because one of Hess'
aims had been to instill the movement with the aura of the fallen and of the spirit of the last war’s
dead. Goebbels was cautious about embracing the sympathetic Stahlhelm too closely. Hess
explains in a letter that the movement should continue to work closely with it, so long as it is clear
to the party faithful that a difference in nationalist attitude exists between them.[76] Von Seldte
was working towards a ‘National Revolution’; the Nazis had their own in mind.

NSDAP political strategy had refuted the idea of a Putsch. Hitler ruled this out after the miserable
failure of what had happened before the Feldherrnhalle on 9th November, 1923. Hess, who had
been transformed by the idea of participating in electoral politics felt he understood as a result of his
Landsberg prison experience electoral propaganda much better. Central to his marked mood of
change was his new overriding perception that a NSDAP electoral majority were possible as long as
the main selling point of the party's propaganda was Hitler's personality to draw in new respectable
bürgerlich voters and join the party vanguard for the cause of equality. Hess made consistently
clear throughout his career this was to be a racial equality; an equality for all German Aryans. The
racial message of his propaganda galvanized the spirit of the party workers and helped them to keep
focused on racial rather than socialist goals. Hess didn't approve of Dr. Strasser and his brand of
anti-capitalistic socialism that ran the risk of alienating bürgerlich voters. A delicate balancing
game had to be played out within the party so as not to cause it any undue schism or imbalance.

If the party embraced undiluted anti-capitalistic socialism viz-a-viz Dr. Strasser than the movement
would lose its racial complexion and resemble more a mechanistic, structural hierarchy led by
intellectualism. This was something Hess and Goebbels vehemently opposed. Both hated Strasser
and sought his demise. They based their argument on unity and embraced either rational or
irrational arguments as long as these served the goal of attaining power. This meant they were both
willing to act deceptively towards voters and towards their own rivals like Gregor Strasser. Hess

154
pursued, for instance, a duplicitous policy towards the Stahlhelm and the DNVP/DVP coalition.
Goebbels agreed. They were keen to see a unified party strategy on this issue, but unlike Hess
Goebbels didn't always experience the smoothness of collaboration. His frustrations would mount
when in discussions with other party workers, which his diary entry for 12th April, 1929, testifies
to: “Lange noch mit Wilke über Hindenburg, Stahlhelm und nationales Bürgertum disputiert. Heute
Freitag. Ich spreche am Abend in der Bockbrauerei gegen die KPD. Wird es Krach geben?”[77]

Agitation against the KPD was a straightforward ideological challenge for the movement. Hess and
Goebbels moved closer in their collaborative efforts on this issue too. The KPD represented the
greater danger to bürgerlich society and to the republic. It was committed to what it called the
overthrow of 'bourgeois democracy' and attacked the bürgerlich-Left and the Social-Democrat
working-class as “Social Fascists.” This would in the course of time prove a serious miscalculation
that would contribute to the rise of the Nazis. The KPD presented a nightmare challenge for the
bürgerlich-Right. The national conservatives suffered under the illusion that a Communist revolt,
as had been evident in 1919 in Berlin and Bavaria and in 1923 in the Ruhr and Saxony and
Thüringia, was at any moment imminent. They failed to understand that the Comintern in Moscow
had temporarily stopped supporting internationalist revolution and supported their German
comrades in electoral canvassing. Earlier the KPD had boycotted elections; it refused to do so now,
hoping through its participation to help paralyze the workings of democracy.

Hess and Goebbels collaborated over NSDAP strategy in the Ruhr to see what could be achieved to
bring young Communists away from the KPD over to the NSDAP. Goebbels writes in his diary,
“Morgen und übermorgen nach Bochum zum westfälischen Parteitag. Der Chef war heute da. Wir
trafen uns mit Göring und Heß zusammen zu mittag und hatten dann eine lange private Unterredung
im Sanssouci.”[78] This is the first mention of Goering [1893-1946] entering into the detailed
discussions between Hess and Goebbels. Goering' character represented a base opportunism rather
than the party's idealism. Goering had faith in Hitler and that was as far as his radical politics
went. If one were to categorize what kind of Nazi he was he was a Hitler-supporter, one who saw
the movement no further than him. In this respect Goering stood for the solely nationalist element
of the movement, believing from the traditional angle of his Bildungsbürgertum origins in the ideal
of the 'great man', the qualities of which he felt had been handed down by the Prussian-German
tradition. In this respect Goering's outlook made him the ideal intermediary with which to court the
nationalist elite of bankers, army generals and industrialists. His image and presence would play
some hand in the eventual back door deal that would bring the Nazis to power. Hess was jealous of
these connections and of the colorful war veteran, but nevertheless he thought he could be used to
bring the influential over to the movement.

Although both Hess and Goebbels had to be wary of rivals that might unseat them, they also had to
keep up a constant monitoring of Hitler's outlook and emotional state. The NSDAP leader could at
times become perturbed, show an uncontrollable anger or slip into depression. At this juncture in
his career Hess was an expert in managing Hitler's emotions. He was constantly at his side and with
him on electioneering tours and he had learned Hitler's moods since having to deal with these in
Landsberg prison. Goebbels by contrast couldn't always manage Hitler's mood swings and in these
early years Goebbels was to an extent dependent on Hess, whom he realized could calm Hitler.
Hess was thus in a unique position of personal trust as far as Hitler was concerned. Although he
didn't know it these years, around either side of the Great Depression, would be when Hess would
in personal terms be at his closest with Hitler. The 'Geli Affair' would shatter this close relationship
in 1931, so that Hess, managing to strengthen his political position even more after 1933, never
again had the same friendship and trust of Hitler as he once did in the years of struggle.

155
An example of a bitter clash Goebbels had with Hitler occurred in May, 1929, over the Stahlhelm
Question about whether to support them whole heartedly or to keep them at a moderate distance to
reinforce the fact that they were just alliance partners and not sharers of the same ideological ideal.
Goebbels writes: “Der Stahlhelm hat Schauermären in die Welt gesetzt. Von einer Desavouierung
meiner Person durch Hitler kann gar nicht die Rede sein. Das Volksbegehren lehnt er auf das
schärfste ab und hat sogar eine schneidige Denkschrift dagegen verfaßt. Von einem
Zusammengehen kann nirgendwo die Rede sein.”[79] This shows the determination of Hitler to
enforce his personal will. This had ramifications for all the Nazi leaders. It meant, for instance,
that Goering had to cool off in his relations to big business while Goebbels and Hess had to face the
fact that their electioneering strategy of duplicity and agitation alongside the Stahlhelm and the
DNVP/DVP coalition had to be temporarily held in abeyance. The magnitude of Hitler's
personality could at a whim prove decisive.

On 30th April, 1929, Goebbels received a letter from Hess that tried to rouse him out of a sense of
depression, which on account of Hitler's interference in the Stahlhelm Question he had succumbed
to. Hess appears at this time to have been good at keeping others on track and helping them not to
lose heart. His letter to Goebbels came in the light of Hitler's refusal to have anything to do with
the Stahlhelm. The NSDAP leader had feared being in a subordinate position opposite his coalition
partners from the bürgerlich-Right and his mood swings threatened to wreck on alliance potential
altogether as he varied from a complimentary position for the ex-serviceman's patriotism to one of
hate whenever he felt limited by playing the game of conventional bürgerlich politics. Hess
recognized it was a game of deception and that the Stahlhelm were to be “accepted” by the NSDAP
as long as was to be necessary. He thus wrote to Goebbels reassuringly that the Stahlhelm were
necessary to their plans for a broad coalition strategy. He saw the primary aim as sowing confusion
and increasing nationalist agitation throughout the republic. He felt this could only be achieved
through alliance strategies until the NSDAP was strong enough to secure an electoral majority for
itself.

Hess tries to galvanize Goebbel's interest into a new course. He thinks that the NSDAP has certain
advantages to gain from working within a nationalist coalition, especially in terms of the increased
media coverage from Hugenberg’s press empire. He pays careful attention to the press and thinks
Hitler is being too hasty wishing to break from the limitations of the coalition with the DNVP/DVP
and the Stahlhelm. Yet Hitler sees the wider picture, too. He was conscious of not wishing to lose
the Leftist elements within the party under Gregor Strasser and appears hard in his actions towards
the bürgerlich-Right because he doesn't want to lose the Left and cause a schism within his own
party. The party Leftists around Gregor Strasser had declared an open war against bürgerlich
society. Hitler would always be playing a difficult game in trying to balance the movement with
concessions to the Leftist NSDAP and to the bürgerlich-Right. As long as his leadership remained
unchallenged Hitler was generally satisfied, but the increase in his political profile brought added
pressure and with it the history of the continual “Magengeschichte” (stomach cramps) as he tried to
force through his own will. Hess was left to gather the pieces of the party emotionally whenever
Hitler's temper exploded. The difficulty for Hess and Goebbels was being able to gag Hitler's
moods and to understanding his reasoning. The NSDAP leader first went towards the DNVP/DVP
coalition; then against it. He embraced the Stahlhelm; then went against it, too. His temperament
resembled a very choppy current and it was difficult for his closest political comrades to work with
him. Goebbels even started to lose patience with Hess, writing: “Heute kommt ein Brief von Heß
ins Auftrag des Chefs an den Stahlhelm in Copie an. Deutlich, aber noch nicht deutlich genug.”[80]

Differences of opinion were emerging between Hess and Goebbels over Hitler's dictatorial style.
They both tried to keep their opinions. Hess was inclined to see coalition with the bürgerlich-Right

156
positively. He preferred the duplicitous approach. Goebbels now abandoned this and advocated no
contact with the bürgerlich-Right and Stahlhelm at all, telling his diary, “Unter keinen Umständen
darf man uns an die Reaktion binden. Ich werde dagegen jedes legale Mittel anwenden,” and adds
with a spirit of determination, “Wir wollen Revolutionäre sein und auch bleiben.”[81] Goebbels'
latent socialism from his Strasser days was reemerging. He was advocating a direct confrontational
approach against bürgerlich society and yet contradictorily self-indulged in his bürgerlich literary
tastes. He compensated his moroseness by turning again to the writing of his unfinished trashy
novels, addressing his own ego thus, “Gute Kritik des Michael im Hammer. Lieben Brief an Afrika
geschrieben. Abends kommt Xenia.”[82]

Towards the end of 1929 the party was descending into personal bickering over insignificant
issues. The talk about the party being on the road to destiny and Hitler on the road to greatness took
a temporary standstill. The furore over the “Panzerkreuzer 'A'” Affair died down and the
Volksbegehren evaporated. The DNVP/DVP coalition parted company from the NSDAP while the
Stahlelm distanced itself feeling aggrieved. Party strategy seemed to have run into an awkward
mess. The Young Plan for 1928 reviewed the reparations costs and drew up favorable guidelines
for Germany. Gustav Stresemann [1878-1929], the Foreign Minister, appeared to have earned more
success for the Reich government's policy of fulfillment. If anyone had thought the NSDAP a
revolutionary danger capable of capturing the German electorate they would have been laughed out
of sight. Yet Stresemann's health was failing and on October 29th, 1929 the Wall Street Crash
occurred. Not Hitler's self-styling as a living legend, not Hess' talk about idealism, not the striving
for a broad coalition strategy, neither racial goals nor antisemitic outbursts and neither Hess' or
Goebbels' burst of energy brought the NSDAP the political transformation it craved. What turned
the tables was sudden economic crisis.

4. 5 Inner Circle

Geli Raubl[83] – a young 19 year old student in 1927 – was the only girl to have possessed a power
over Hitler. She arrived from Vienna with her mother, Angela Raubl, a widow whose husband had
left her and her daughter with little financial means. It was principally for that reason that Hitler
had invited the two to visit Munich and think of a long term future there. Hitler had an ulterior
motive, as he had a deep repressed love for his niece. During her and her mother's initial visit to
Germany Hess accompanied them with Hitler. They went to Berlin and watched As You Like It by
William Shakespeare, a comedy Hitler didn't particularly enjoy; not understanding the humor he
couldn't fit into this own world. One of the ironies is that Hitler despite having made his home in
the big city, remained courtesy of his stateless status, a Bavarian though not a German citizen and
was still very much the provincial boy incapable of adapting to his urban environment. He said he
even hated Berlin but for its museums. Munich appealed a little more on account of his having got
to know familiar haunts. In contrast his niece, Geli, was very taken with the big city. She wanted
to study. She wanted to apply her mind. She wanted to live.

Uncle Hitler wasn't the kind of person who would let her live. He was extremely oppressive
towards her and yet could be kind and gentle. Hitler had very much a Jekyll and Hyde relationship
with most things, places and people and it was his relationship to his niece that epitomized his
unbalanced state of mind and frustrating emotions. Hess, who was privileged to see Hitler in this
private sphere became very wary of Hitler's vulnerability. It was as a result of their having been
together in Landsberg prison that Hess became privy to Hitler's personal and private information.
He learned that he had a sister (died 1960),[84] who led a very reclusive existence having never
married. His other sister, Angela, had married an older man, Herr Raubl, and it was her misfortune
that he should have passed away. Hess was quite touched that he was permitted to know people in

157
Hitler's family. Hitler never as a rule wanted to talk about his family. He carried a portrait of his
deceased mother, Klara, which of course was the name of Hess' mother too. This coincidence may
have been a point that drew Hitler to Hess. Ordinarily Hitler trusted no one. His main
characteristic was that he hated and hating people who had offended or hurt him in some way either
through a deed or thought was something that stayed with him for many years. Hitler was
complicated.

Hess recognized the complications in Hitler, but also recognized these lesser character traits as a
downside for someone who had to be ordained in God's eyes as a brilliant and gifted orator. It was
in defense of this apparent brilliance that Hess was prepared to defend the vulnerable aspects of
Hitler's character and thus protect the myth of the great politician. It seemed only natural to Hess
that he would become drawn more into Hitler's personal realm because as far as he was concerned,
since his political transformation in Landsberg prison, it was extremely important for him to be
acquainted with Hitler's personal circumstances and to make sure the “other” Hitler, the one who
was complicated and emotionally vulnerable, at least be in a calmed state. Hess began his role of
counseling whenever matters of a private nature arose with Hitler. Hitler had no real friends. Hess
counted himself as Hitler's friend. He wanted to continue with the emotional and spiritual bonding
that he had started in Landsberg prison. In this respect Landsberg represents a point of
transformation for Hitler, too, because he was as a result of being with Hess those six months able
to have friendship.

Hess recognized furthermore that if Hitler was to perform as the great politician and unite the
masses through the sheer magnetism of his personality and through the dynamic of his oratory there
had to be times when Hitler could rest and feel at ease with himself and with company. He was
naturally indolent, but that didn't mean that his laziness fostered a calm state of mind; it probably
did the opposite and encouraged him to be haphazard in his thoughts and lifestyle. He would
usually rise late, read the newspapers with a quick glancing eye through his spectacles and then go
off to frequent one of his haunts. He consumed vast quantities of tea and cake and his inner circle
or “Tee Gesellschaft” as it was known as could also provide him with a pretext to become agitated,
especially when he chose like-minded company; the kind of people like Herman Esser whose
humor was crude and whose opinions were underdeveloped. Hitler preferred the company of the
semi-educated or the pseudo-intellectual. Dietrich Eckardt, to whom he once looked up to in the
way he was to see Scheubner-Richter, was before his premature death in 1923 a model for Hitler in
being both refined and crude.

Hess wanted to refine Hitler. To achieve this he needed to indulge more in his private sphere and
for that reason he seized upon the opportunity to meet Angela Raubl and Geli. He was quite taken
with Geli, describing her as a “Backfisch” with a vivacious character. Hess recognized the
importance of having close family. Despite the estrangement from his mother – their relationship
was never what it had been in the years before he joined the NSDAP back in 1920 – he recognized
her importance in critical phases in his life, particularly during his time away at boarding school, his
apprenticeship in Hamburg and during his war service. These were times when he received letters
and kind words from home. Hitler had never had this. His mother had died of cancer when he
reached adulthood at eighteen. His father, a bully, had died earlier. His sister, Paula, he was
estranged from. That left Angela and her daughter. Hess recognized their importance immediately
and encouraged them both to settle in Munich away from Vienna. He felt that if Hitler had a
securer family foundation with his sister and niece nearby, reachable on almost a daily or at least
weekly basis this would help 1) improve Hitler's bürgerlich image as the responsible uncle 2)
improve his mind in gentle surroundings with visits to the theater and 3) free his family from Jewish
influence. This was the criteria that Hess applied to his thinking.

158
Hess was always ready to identify the racial and Jewish Question because these ideological
attributes were firmly ingrained in his personal as well as in his professional life as a politician. He
was keen to unite the public and private sphere of one's life so that one didn't suffer under duress
and from contradiction. He wanted to pull Hitler away from the cretins he identified in his
movement such as Hermann Esser and Julius Streicher. Esser would club people with chair legs in
the familiar fights that occurred whenever a NSDAP meeting had unwelcome Leftist hecklers.
Hitler, too, under Esser's influence, had developed this attribute of excessive violence. He had on
one occasion in 1921 pushed a heckler off from the podium and had almost kicked him to death.
On that occasion Scheubner-Richter, had got him off lightly.

Hess was quite envious of Hitler's lawyer-friend, which he had had in his past before Landsberg
prison. Hess had complications, too. On the one hand he wanted to establish a gentle and refined
bürgerlich environment for Hitler with educated people, respectable women and family. He
reasoned that any future great leader of the nation had to conduct himself in such a way that was
cultured and refined. Even Hitler's anti-Semitism Hess wanted to refine. Hence, he agreed with
Hitler's view that Angela Raubl and her daughter should leave Vienna on account of it being 'too
Jewish'. Living in a Jewish dominated city wasn't healthy, reasoned Hitler, and Hess agreed. Hess
wanted to demonstrate that the sensitivities of cultural anti-Semitism should be encouraged in Hitler
in order to bring him away from the rowdy anti-Semitic irrationality of Esser and Streicher. He
wanted to encourage Hitler to develop a refined anti-Semitic outlook so that he could be the
measure of the Jews intellectually. In his view a potentially great man as Hitler had to alter himself
for the good and, more importantly, for the aspect of culture. That's why when Hess was left with
the responsibility for the itinerary when Angela and her daughter first arrived in Germany Hess was
pleased to arrange as many trips to the theater and opera and to museums as much as possible.

It is interesting that Hess himself took every opportunity to involve Hitler in aspects of culture and
of history, which he liked. This accounts for the visit to the Egyptian Museum and to the Museum
Insel. He was trying to shape Hitler's personal life in three ways: 1) to develop a close personal
friendship with him and to go with him alone and incognito to places of cultural interest; 2) to
develop a small family circle including cultured friends and 3) to have time together with a select
few of party comrades to watch films and to dine, although just in a male environment. With this
element of control Hess believed that Hitler would develop into a much better person and would
match the idealism that he preached. In effect Hess was trying to project his own image in Hitler
not realizing that the aggressive, destructive streak in Hitler probably inherited from his father,
wanted to find expression and that he did delight in expressing himself at times crudely and enjoyed
the coarse humor he inherited from his time in the trenches. Hess' efforts to change the man he had
got closer to in his personal habits and in his habitual thinking became an enormous task.

* * *

To make a start in his quest to alter Hitler Hess had to look at himself. If, as he may have thought,
the destructive habits of Hitler's father were the cause of all that was ill in Hitler then Hess probably
reasoned that a reexamination of the relationship he had to his own father was probably over due.
The time for such a reexamination following his release from Landsberg prison in December, 1924,
couldn't have come at a more appropriate time bearing in mind that Hess relationship to his Ersatz
father, Karl Haushofer, had suffered on account of their ideological differences. In fact it was the
same differences that had troubled Hess' adult relationship to his own father. Fritz Hess had stood
pretty much for the same aristocratic-reactionary nationalism Karl Haushofer had stood for.
However, after Hess became Hitler's Private Secretary and was developing a serious political career
Fritz Hess took note and began to acknowledge his son's choice of career as a nationalist politician.

159
Hess was very interested in the idea of projecting status and culture because in his view this brought
mutual respect and in society's eyes respectability. On 3rd January, 1930, Hess wrote to his parents
after a period of not writing for some time. The letter was principally directed at his father. He
wanted to show him that he had actually progressed as a person and that he had a respectable career
as a NSDAP politician.

It is clear that Hess' letter dated 3rd January, 1930, is meant for his father because it addresses Fritz
Hess' own personal financial loss and loss of status. Before the First World War he was an
established businessman, who had inherited the textile factory of his father. Fritz Hess had added
the coaling station to his list of businesses and as a result of the First World War had everything
confiscated by the Anglo-Egyptian government. His efforts to restart his business interests in Egypt
in 1924, significantly at around the time of Hess' imprisonment with Hitler, also encountered
problems, although this time not because of confiscation but because of cash-flow, borrowing
interests and lack of time. The sudden onset of the Great Depression affected market prices, money
supply and borrowing in such a tempestuous way that a lot of fragile businesses like Fritz Hess'
went virtually to the wall. His non-achievement in life was to be a businessman, who had been
ruined twice.

It is because his businesses take a turn for the worst that Fritz Hess takes an active interest in
nationalist politics, looking with interest at what is going on in Germany. The Volksbegehren and
the coalition with the Stahlhelm gave the NSDAP new status and respectability in the eyes of the
patriotic Bürgertum. As a result of Alfred Hugenberg's huge media empire Hitler's picture and
speeches appeared in countless newspapers, journals and magazines. Hitler was before the Nazi
electoral sensation of 14th September, 1930, a well known figure. The memory of his grandiloquent
court appearance in Munich in April, 1924, helped him to be well received among bürgerlich
voters. It is because of all this public interest in Hitler and the NSDAP that attracts him to Hess'
father. This leads to their discussion of politics and about the shape of things to come. Hess
explains to his father that the financial position of the Auslandsdeutschen shall be as destitute as
that of the German state, portraying for him a strong negative impression of existing economic
circumstances. He tells his father, “Ich glaube nicht, dass dieser neue Staat, der das Erbe des alten
antritt in finanzieller Hinsicht sobald in der Lage wäre, das Unrecht an den Auslandsdeutschen in
vollem Umfang wiedergutzumachem.” He is in effect writing off the republican government,
which he sees as worthless in terms of trying to provide compensation for German nationals
abroad. The picture Hess is giving is one of the Systemszeit, the Nazi phrase that sees 'moral
bankruptcy' in the Reich government.[85]

What Hess promises his father is the coming not just of a new Reich government, but of a new kind
of nationalist state. Here, as a result of his working experience in the Volksbegehren and with the
Stahlhelm Hess is writing in terms of the projected “National Revolution.” He tells his father that
the next government shall be a coalition of nationalist forces that will help to reawaken Germany.
He writes with words of encouragement, “Wohl aber bin ich überzeugt, dass ein wirklich nationaler
Staat aus eigenstem Interesse die in Ausland den deutschen Handel vermittelnden deutschen Firmen
kapitalmäßig in die Lage versetzen muss, wirklich die Konkurrenz mit den fremden Firmen
aufzunehemen.”[86] This view he presents represents a false promise he cannot keep. According
to Hess' ideological vision it would be virtually impossible for Germany to reestablish her economic
world preeminence as had once existed before 1914 on account of the rivalry between the Great
Powers. He also considers his belief in an internationalist conspiracy against Germany on the part
of world capitalistic Jewry. Seeing Germany's situation as perilous as a result Hess emphasized the
nation's financial enslavement, commenting, “Der Zustand der Reichsfinanzen ist katastrophal, was

160
ja auch nicht anders sein kann, wenn mann jahrzentelang Milliarden über Milliarden ans Ausland
als Reparationen zählt.”[87]

Astonishingly in a much later letter dating from 1937, written from Egypt, Fritz Hess reiterates this
negative impression that precludes the reemergence of Germany's world position, which cannot
in his view be achieved. Essentially speaking, Fritz Hess hankered after the aristocratic-reactionary
nationalism of the DNVP/DVP coalition during the era of the republic. This meant that with the
reemergence of the former Wilhelmine elites in government, industry, and the military back into
their pre1914 position he would have expected a reintroduction of Weltpolitik and a confident and
aggressive foreign policy to back German claims in international markets. With the dissolving of
the DNVP?DVP coalition with all the other political parties through the so-called Enabling Law in
March, 1933, Fritz Hess begins to take stock of his son's ideas, which refute the idea of a “National
Revolution” and of supporting the former elites. After 1933 Hess clearly stands for a new
conception of state and society and that is a racial one. He becomes an exponent of Reichsplanung,
[Central Planning] and withdraws from support of German industry in a competitive world market
abroad, he is more focused on the development of internal markets [“Binnenmarkt”].

Hess is very complimentary about the German pioneer who has tried to triumph in the face of
adversity abroad, but after 1933 he is convinced that this adventure of pioneering – associated with
Weltpolitik – belongs to the past and that the future lies with the development of internal markets
and with the insulation of the German economy. Before 1933, however, he wasn't saying anything
different because as a NSDAP politician Hess' future projection of state and society was based on
his racial one. Having read Othmar Spann, first in 1917 and again in Landsberg prison in 1924, he
burrows deep into the ideas of Stände or Berufsstände, which represent his egalitarian version of
society. He sees each profession as a Stand or guild, arguing each of these will look after the
interests of its employers and employees. The future role of Die Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF)
wasn't to be a union, but meant to be a widespread cultural organization developing schemes to
improve the work place, improve workers' fitness and to organize pleasure cruises. The idea of
having a trade union for the working-class and of having blue-collar and white-collar unions for the
bürgerlich professions is under Hess' future vision of the Third Reich to be abolished and replaced
by autonomous working Stände.

In effect Hess is lying to his father in his letter dated 3rd January, 1930, which is why it is so
significant. He never believed in the concept of “National Revolution.” He only saw a broad
coalition of nationalist forces as a temporary measure. What Hess truly wanted was to see the old
conception of the traditional centralized state collapse. What he wants in its place is a more vibrant
national community with employer and employee working together in Stände supporting each
other. The Stände can fix conditions because there would be under the new system he envisages no
need for regular state-societal relations and industrial relations between employer and employees
because there would in Hess' view be a Brave New World in which the people take on a vested
interest in their professional lives and attempt to run them along more natural racial-biological
lines. Hess in his ideological conception of the world stands for a racial-biological compositions of
society. That means dividing it up into racial vessels or professional Berufsstände working for
themselves under the protective aegis of the NSDAP. In Hess' view the NSDAP will fashion in a
new racial vision, but in 1930 he is unable to say that to his father, for he feels the Bürgertum and
the aristocratic-reactionary elite s wouldn't accept such a message, so for that reason he lies and tells
his father he supports the idea of “National Revolution” and of Germany competing again in foreign
markets, but he truly has no interest in this.[88]

161
To make the point of a new beginning and to make clear that the NSDAP has arrived with a new
firm status of its own Hess tells his parents in another letter, this one dated 10th March, 1931, about
the opening of the new party headquarters in Munich, Das Braune Haus. He is quite pleased to talk
about the architecture of the building and of its imposing style. The architect was Dr. Paul Ludwig
Troost[89] Hess is very proud to tell his parents of the completion of the building's interior,
writing, “Dieser Sitz ist unserer großen Bewegung würdig!”[90] The completing of the design
interior came at a time when the NSDAP had just secured its first major electoral victory on 14th
September, 1930, when the NSDAP was rewarded with 107 Reichstag deputies and became the
second largest parliamentary faction under the NSDAP faction chief, Gregor Strasser, who was also
NSDAP Organisationsleiter. Hess is very proud to present a harmonious propagandistic picture of
the movement; in fact one that projects its image of unity. Once again Hess lies to his parents. In
the aftermath of the electoral victory the threats of party schisms grew as the SA wanted to carry out
a Putsch, whereas the Leftist faction under Gregor Strasser wanted to see the economic crisis
intensify so that the Bürgertum became “proletarianized” as a result of losing its assets and status.
These threats of division fail to receive Hess' attention. He is interested only in unity, even when
there isn't any. His main focus presents a positive image of the party, raising its profile in photo-
magazines such as the party one, Der Illustrierte Beobachter. Hess is so interested in having the
minor details of the building projected that the accompanying article to the photographs are full
with references to architecture and the effects of the artistic ambiance. Excited by the photos Hess,
who has sent a copy of the illustrated photo-magazine to his parents, instructs them, “ Demnächst
werdet Ihr im Illustrieter Beobachter wohl die ersten Bildern des Innern sehen.”[91]

Hess' reflective views of his own relationship to his father, although helping to improve his own
situation, provided no parental model for Hitler to be inspired by. Nevertheless, he had some
success in shaping Hitler's private inner circle of male comrades with whom Hitler could spend time
and relax. Hess took great care as to who was to be a part of this inner group. He made sure that
Hermann Esser was excluded. Emil Maurice, Hitler's Chauffeur, was included, but preferred on his
evenings off to elope with Geli Raubl, with whom he had fallen in love. If Hess was aware of this
relationship – certainly Ilse Hess was – why did he do nothing to bring about its end amicably or
even mention it to Hitler. It is funny, but one of the greatest challenges surrounding a romantic,
especially one so well acquainted with poetic romanticism as Hess was, was his inability to raise a
romantic theme with Hitler. Their small talk revolved around serious issues and when it wasn't
focused on political propaganda, party organization and electioneering, then it turned to the serious
topics to be found in culture, history and architecture. One relaxing topic of conversation for Hess
and Hitler might have been nature, but as yet Hitler wasn't firmly established in his summer
residence on the Obersalzberg until the late 1930s, so that only Albert Speer became privileged for
the long walks up and down near the tea house that Hitler so coveted.

Nevertheless, Hess got Hitler actively engaged in cinema and that was something they would watch
together. It had been a very important part of Hess' agenda to develop his personal friendship to
Hitler, but this depended on Hess being able to manage the other two areas he had assigned himself
with responsibility: namely looking after Hitler's immediate family and controlling who was among
his male inner circle. The fact that Emile Maurice was having an affair with Geli put Hess' position
in danger, for what if Hitler found about it and Hess were to say nothing. It seems that in this
instant the great romantic turned a blind eye to love. Hess also made a miscalculation in terms of
the inner male group around Hitler. Joseph Goebbels had risen in stature since coming over to
Hitler's side. Goebbels was a calculating opportunist, who saw what advantages there were to be
gained from being a part of Hitler's male circle. It meant he could gain an insight into Hitler's
personality and draw close to him, but the relationship between Hitler and Goebbels always
remained an ideological one. In effect they failed to become friends.

162
The danger of Goebbels' political rise to Hess became apparent in 1931/32. Until then the two men
shared a working arrangement in propaganda and electioneering. In terms of relaxation they
accompanied Hitler to the movies. The role of who could choose the movies became very
important. Whoever chose unwisely ran the risk of upsetting Hitler for having made him watch a
second rate film. Out of caution Hess always chose epics and often, quite astoundingly, Jewish
films so that these would stimulate a debate on cultural anti-Semitism, part of Hess' strategy to
make Hitler a more refined and cultured person, even if he was grooming him as a refined anti-
Semite. One of Hess' evening choices – the group always went at night, incognito and in fast cars –
was a film, Der Kongreß tanzt, by the German-Jewish film director Charell. Goebbels verdict on
the film brought on his sarcastic wit and that was entertaining enough for Hitler. The problem for
Hess was that Hitler and Goebbels were sometimes so thoroughly dominating in conversation that
Hess, whose wit was less sharp, found himself left out. Often he would talk seriously about the
film, while Goebbels would send it up. It would be clear to whom Hitler would turn for an easy
laugh.

The trips to the cinema might not have rewarded Hess so much as he had hoped, but he did hope to
gain by having Hitler invited regularly at weekend evenings to his Munich apartment at no. 16
Hartingsstrasse. At home the Hess couple could play the hosts. That meant they had control over
the setting and the ambiance as well as pleasing Hitler with what food he liked. His favorite dish
was dumplings and, of course, there was always a selection of cakes with tea to crown the meal.
Usually Hitler would either dominate table conversation or listen, especially when it was the turn of
the ladies to speak. Hess made sure that Angela Raubl and Geli were present as were sometimes
Pfeffer von Salomon, the OSAF until early 1931, and his wife. Goebbels would be present as the
lone maverick. He was forbidden to bring one of his mistresses because Hitler was against having
“loose” women present, whether single or divorced. He preferred a married woman to talk to or a
widow. He liked talking to older women such as his former lad lady, Frau Reichelt. It was in fact
through Frau Reichelt that Hitler and Ilse Hess first became acquainted. While in Landsberg prison
back in 1924 Hitler found that he had been missing some of his architectural books. Wishing to
have these picked up for him the errand fell to Ilse who went to collect the books and bring them to
the prison. Hitler was quite touched by this and regarded Ilse quite gently. It was only when Ilse,
who had the ambition to dominate the inner circle as the leading Nazi First Lady, that Hitler became
a little unnerved. He was also upset more than anything by her frivolity with Geli.

It is curious that Hess who had wanted to get near to Hitler's personal life and draw it closer to him
found that his plan wasn't quite going as well as he intended. The reason was because of those
personalities involved. Geli was proving too vivacious and this was stressing Hitler rather than
relaxing him. When Hitler became stressed it was noted how he would glare and keep his
aggression pent up waiting for a moment to explode. He could control a meal table. Goebbels
comments upon one these moods, “Der Chef war ernst und schweigsam.”[92] Hess was becoming
stressed as well by these occasions. Only the women seemed to be enjoying themselves. Goebbels
would jot down in his diary, describing Geli as a ““ein entzückendes Ding.”[93] Goebbels could
contribute to the table discussion with gentle humor and add to the atmosphere. He seemed to
enjoy himself at the Hess apartment on certain occasions and wrote secretively into his diary, “noch
bei Hessens eingeladen, wo wir einen schönen, intriguenentrückten Abend verleben.”[94] Goebbels
would also say about one evening that was particularly good for him, “Mit seiner schönen Nichte
(...). Mit Heß, seiner Frau, Geli und Amann bis eben im Rheingold. Viel gelacht..”[95]

* * *

163
On 20th September, 1931, Goebbels received a phone call. Looking back retrospectively he jotted
down in his diary, “Ich werde gestern morgen von Heß angerufen.”[96] The news he received was
catastrophic. Geli was dead. She had taken Hitler's Browning pistol, pointed it at her heart and and
had fired. There is no telling what must have been going through her thoughts in her last moments.
Goebbels will not hazard a guess and pretends he has no clue over the motive, scribbling down once
again retrospectively, “Ich wage garnicht, nach den Motiven zu forschen.”[97] Goebbels' thin
skinned sensitivity cannot disguise his ulterior motive. The reader of his diary gains the impression
that the instant he conceives of sensitivity in his mind it is almost gone before he has committed the
thought to paper. What he was thinking about was how he could gain from Hitler's acute position
of vulnerability. Hitler had locked himself into his apartment building, would refuse to ask all
questions, the authorities were perturbed, the law courts lay waiting in the background and Bavarian
state ministers were ready to have an investigative inquiry. It is extraordinary that Hitler stayed in
the building several days in which he would have heard the gun shot thump into Geli's chest. Her
blood soaked body he had found within a quarter of an hour or so of having an argument. There is
a train of thought that suggests Hitler in a fit of rage murdered his niece, which despite the evidence
of his intense grieving remains a unproven theory. An inquiry and an unwelcome court case
loomed at Hitler's door, but this threat receded. Once again Hitler's acquaintances in high places,
Franz Gürtner, the Bavarian Justice Minister, and Dr. Wilhelm Frick [1877-1946] representing the
legal inquiries of the Bavarian Police Commission made sure that Hitler didn't have to attend any
court proceeding nor have his political reputation damaged.

Hitler was most fortunate to have had such sympathetic figures of high rank looking out for his
interests. Had they not been there it is more than likely that Hitler would have had to face difficult
and embarrassing questions in a public court case. There would have been nothing Hess would
have been able to do to have prevented this. Thanks to Gürtner and Frick Hitler got off lightly
without any serious critical investigation. Geli' mother was draped in mourning and Geli quietly
buried in a cemetery in Munich. Hitler managed to avoid the questions asked by the media, mainly
rhetorical ones, for to pose a question to Hitler, given the array of protection squads and supporters
around him, and to receive an answer was virtually impossible. All this fervent activity made Hess'
job as head of the party organization that much easier. His main priority was to have Hitler
protected, but he felt somehow culpable in this unpleasant affair. He was unable to see Hitler
personally nor reach him by phone. The Hess couple took the silence to be an expression of
disapproval against their actions. Ilse had been the last to know intimately of Geli's affections, ones
she had encouraged. Hess felt paralyzed by the whole affair, not knowing how and when he could
approach Hitler. The warm, loyal friendship he thought he had to Hitler, one that he had acquired
from being with Hitler in Landsberg prison for six months between May-December, 1924, appeared
to be in serious jeopardy. If Hess had problems trying to contact Hitler, so did Goebbels. Goebbels'
concerns were different or should one say his priorities were different.[98] He had nothing to lose
whereas Hess had a friendship to lose. Goebbels didn't think of the possibility of becoming Hitler's
friend because their characters were too entirely different. His mind filled up with the intention of
how close he could draw to Hitler and shape a new ideological partnership to the envy of other
Reichsleiters and to the envy of Hess.

On the morning of Geli's death Hess was unable to contact Hitler. He didn't know what to do or
whom he should inform. There was Max Amann and Wiedemann, two former soldiers who had
belonged to Hitler’s former World War One regiment and whom perhaps he could have mobilized
as a warm front of solidarity around the beleaguered NSDAP leader. He thought how the old
soldier connections sometimes provided other former soldiers with a kind of emotional grounding,
with the sharing of former joys and sorrows.[99] After all, Hess must have reasoned, if the struggle
to power was being waged by the NSDAP as an assault against an enemy then the politics of the

164
party surely resembled soldierly combat in another guise against the “mixed bag” of “liars, agent
provocateurs, Jews and Social-Democrats” that made up the “opposition.” Despite Hess' reasoning
Hitler didn't perceive his present personal tragedy over Geli as a military set back. The tragedy
represented a genuine emotional entanglement that had shaken him severely. The leader of the
movement seemed emotionally inapproachable. As the media attention grew, uncertainty in party
ranks and curiosity amongst the political opposition became more intense, so that Hitler took refuge
in one person only: a newcomer upon the scene, Magda Goebbels.

Goebbels reveals his emotional superficiality through the over-dramatic sensationalizing of his own
reactions to Hitler. He tells his diary, “Armer Hitler! Man möchte ihn in den Arm nehmen und ihm
Trost zusprechen. Da hilft nur Trotz und Stärke.”[100] Had he known it then he would have
realized that his new wife, Magda, had the key to revitalizing Hitler through a simple feminine
embrace. It is interesting that Hitler's supporters showed little concerned over the poor girl who had
taken her life. She had been quickly taken from Hitler's apartment block by police – probably loyal
to Dr. Frick's Police Commission – and left in a mortuary without even an autopsy. Geli belonged
quickly to history. Hitler, on the other hand, tottered on a redoubt upon whose other side there was
a nothingness. What this image reveals is that Hitler, the man who had styled himself as one of the
people, needed to behave quickly as one of the people and regain his common touch as an inventive
and charismatic politician. No one was thinking on his behalf. Hess was paralyzed in thought
while Goebbels wished only to secure for himself a much stronger position. His new wife, Magda,
offered a practical solution and decided she alone would approach Hitler. She was to an extent
acting on her husband's behalf, but Magda Goebbels ought not have her ambition underestimated.
She entertained the idea of becoming the First Lady of the Nazi movement.

Magda Goebbels' approach to Hitler did the trick of breaking Hitler's despondency and of taking
him from out of his depression. She offered him a motherly embrace using her feminine allure to
ease his conscience and to get him back thinking politically. She may have even genuinely offered
herself to him with the thought of becoming his mistress. This would have been the easiest way for
to have secured for herself a position of political power beside the head of the movement.
Whatever thoughts and emotions were communicated between them Hitler nevertheless responded
to her in the manner of the great leader and thanked her for her concern. This was his way of
rejecting her. Hitler once admitted that he could never have a mistress on account of all the
responsibilities he had to undertake. This was a flawed argument, bearing in mind that within a
short time of Geli's death he did take a mistress, the submissive and highly strung Eva Braun, who
was no prettier than Magda Goebbels' attractive side. What Hitler rejected in Magda was her
intelligence, whereas Eva Braun couldn't really think beyond the detail of trivial everyday matters.

What Geli Raubl's death actually represented was a loss for all parties. The Goebbels couple didn't
really acquire the closeness to Hitler they craved because they were too shallow and Hitler objected
being a part of a select three's company.[101] The Hess couple lost out because they had their post
usurped by the Goebbels couple and even though Joseph and Magda Goebbels failed to play as long
term active hosts for Hitler, they were encouraged by the NSDAP leader to settle and have their
own children. Their's was a shallow marriage of convenience. They were never really happy
together and both continued to take lovers despite having five children, all girls, together. Magda
Goebbels, as Speer testifies, really loved Karl Hahnke, Goebbels' press secretary.[102] Goebbels
himself had a tempestuous affair with the pro-German Czech actress, Lida Baàrova,[103] until told
to end the relationship and to return to his wife for the sake of the children. This represented
Hitler's moralistic vacuousness, for he was bereft of moral decency and perverted to his very core.
For a woman to become near to him was dangerous. Eva Brau, with her numerous hang us and

165
suicide attempts, seems to have been a willing submissive partner to his own hang ups and
perverted confusions.[104]

Against this context of double standards and a lack of moral privacy and decency, the Hess-couple
were troubled by their own frustrations. Perhaps Hess was the only one of the leading Nazis who
believed in a romantic ideal for the private realm and family life. His and his wife's greatest
challenge was that they couldn't have a child until the birth of his only son in 1938, Wolf-Rüdiger.
Hess and Ilse tried to live life as the archetypal racial couple who thought well of Hitler, loved
nature and did charitable deeds. Yet, ultimately, as Hess had foreseen, the private realm should
have been a mirror reflection of an archetypal racial couple and family living in the racial
community. In this respect Hess wanted to tear down walls, but the private realm as the perverted
habitual life styles, affairs and corruptness of the leading Nazis made Hess racial and poetic
romanticist ideal of man and woman left unfulfilled, except with what he hoped of the younger
generation. It saddened him that he had failed in trying to transform Hitler personally and the
blame for that failure lies around the circumstances that led to Geli' death.

Hess' three aims in the personal realm – to give Hitler a personal friend [in himself!], to develop his
connections to his family, and to develop a select male group of friends as a kind of additional inner
“think tank” that would refine and intellectualize ideas in a relaxing environment – were all goals
that he failed to achieve. It shall be argued throughout the course of this work that Hess did,
contrary to expectations, succeed in achieving an ideological systematized and bureaucratized level
of personal power in pursuit of racial utopia, but that he was unable to fully fulfill these ideals was
based on the fact that the moral and ethical example he expected in the private conduct of the party
leaders and of Hitler simply wasn't there. Had Geli Raubl lived and had she and her uncle
developed a normal relationship and had Hitler closer ties to his sisters, then the family ideal around
the Fuhrer might have been possible for Hess to establish. The linchpin of his hopes for Hitler in
the personal sphere depended on Geli and her death signified Hitler's regression: the one friend
scenario broke down, the family around Hitler became more fragmented and reclusive and the male
company Hitler often chose became more disreputable.

As a postscript to questions of moral decency Hess was confronted with how he should respond to
the death of his mother's brother, who committed suicide through gassing himself in the kitchen of
his apartment after he learned that everything he had worked for was lost in the inflation of the
Great Inflation. He killed himself a little after six months after the Geli Raubl tragedy. In her
inconsolable grief Klara Hess felt that the personal challenge of having to face death could serve a
greater purpose of helping oneself through compassion to know one's self.[105] She tried to relate
the whole experience of death through Hitler's eyes as a result of Geli's passing away in such tragic
circumstances. Klara Hess gives her empathy for Hitler a mother's perspective. She thinks of him
writing, “Wie leid tut es mir, dass Ihr so viel getrennt seid.”[106] She strives to find the real Hitler,
the one who must be truly honest with himself is he is truly honest and one with his people. She
becomes, astonishingly, in the course of 1931/1932 an ardent Hitler admirer, but it is the myth – the
Hitler Myth – and not the reality of the man that she sees. In that respect Hess knew he was
elevating Hitler ideologically through the ‘Hitler-Myth’ when in actual fact he was immeasurably
aware of Hitler’s foibles and self-perversions.

Klara Hess, however, only sees the great man and great potential of a leader who can lead his
country to Messianic greatness. Her daughter, too, goes through a kind of quasi-religious
transformation. Gretel Hess joins Die Deutschen Christen movement.[107] She believes in a
Aryan Jesus and combines through her belief the ideal of moral virtue and sanctity within the
personal realm to reflect her racial body and projection of herself as an Aryan woman in the racial

166
society. Klara Hess hasn't gone so far and retains her traditional Christian belief. She sees Hitler
like so many of the Bürgertum as an embodiment and continuation of the great figures of German
History. She mixes her belief with a little saga and legend and sees a Siegfried in Hitler waging his
battle against the Versailles treaty, the Entente powers, Bolshevism and some, she is willing to
concede, Jewish capitalist plutocrats. She doesn't think Hitler and her son, representing him as his
Stellvertreter, are leading Germany along an agenda towards racial stereotyping, categorization and
genocide. She doesn't see that her son's and Hitler's pursuit of racial goals is inextricably linked
with anti-Semitism and the Jewish Question. She sees Hitler in a traditional and morally upright
way and believes he has been reinvigorated by the tragic death of his niece. In a full and final
appreciation of Hitler she wants her son to also take hope. Writing of Hitler she praises him
thus:

“Wie traurig, dass Hitler gerade in dieser Zeit der größten Nervenanspannung den Verlust seiner lieben
Nichte beklagten muss – sie war ihm sicher ein 'Sonnenschein' u. konnte ihm die wenigen Erholungsstunden
im eigenen Heim verschönen, wirklich zur Erholung beitragen. Sie wird ihm schmerzlich fehlen. Da seine
'Berufung' ihn so vollkommen in Anspruch nimmt, kann der Arme sich nicht die Wohltat eines Ehelebens
gönnen. Auch für ihn wird es Zeit, dass dieser Kampf für die Rettung des Vaterlandes zum Endsieg
kommt.” [108]

The question though had to be asked: how could Hess deceive himself when he knew the Hitler
Myth and the reality of Hitler's person in the private realm didn't match up? His answer is silence
and, willingly, as he does with so many other German people he lets his mother believe in the myth
that has become Hitler as the God-given truth.

167