Talk:Rudolf Höss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Old Discussions[edit]

SS Career[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commandant at Auschwitz[edit]

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

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

A published biography of Hoess on Amazon has an interesting review. I have seen internet sites that say how Hoess got 1941 and 1942 mixed up. In one case he confessed to executing - gas - a year before the camp system was even in operation. In the other - new with this autobiography ( it must be hard to write an accurate fictional biography if you don't have a photogaphic mind and have read every piece of paper on the subject in existence - and hope no more papers are found) Hoess mentions meeting HImmler in 1941. It turns out he didn't meet Himmler that year - explained away as a slip in memory so it had to be 1942. However, Himmlers 1942 scheduling calendar has been found and they never met in 1942 - nowhere near each other, etc. Hoess' confession gets softer and softer with time. Question - is Hoess' confession - number he killed - only for his tenure at a camp or does it include deaths for other commandants tenure. The numbers have problems either way it appears - more trivia. 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source - link, etc - to Hoess' daily reporrts to Berlin ( in code, decoded by the Enigma codebreakers everyday )from Auschwitz? 18:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his confessions and his treatment by the authorities. In his autobiography Höß says that he was initially treated badly by the British when he was arrested and evidence was obtained by beating. However when he was transferred to Nuremburg he was treated well although he found the interrogations unpleasant psychologically. In May 1946 he was flown to Cracow where he was put in a Polish prison. There, after initially being treated well, he was treated badly by being starved but later things improved and he was treated well again. He was then transferred to Warsaw for trial and his autobiography was written while he was there, before he came to trial. He wrote that he would not have written his biography but for "...a disarming humanity and understanding that I never dared to expect". Welkinridge 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Expanded History[edit]

Unfortunately, some think that expanding the history in certain key places is wrong. However, the information given is accurate and is of a type found in most encyclopedias. I have consulted the "vandalism" section of the Wikipedia FAQ and found that changing the information to give more depth is NOT considered vandalism and is perfectly acceptable. If you do not agree with the expanded information, that is unfortunate. It will continue to be placed within the article every day until it is not edited out.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deddolly (talkcontribs) 01:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Move to Rudolf Höss[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The gross S is incomprehensible to most Anglophones; it is not a simple diacritic but a ligature. Jd2718 12:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The convention is to "use the 30-letter German alphabet in proper names, in line with the broader Wikipedia convention…", although editors are encouraged to explain alternatives (Höss, Hoess, Hoss). The current title is clearly mandated. --Stemonitis 13:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not a member of Wiki Project Germany, but I do note that this part of their naming convention page (which otherwise seems common-sense, or makes good choices) is in direct contradiction to the German alphabet article, which does not call the (is it "sharp S?) a letter, but agrees with me that it is a ligature. Words with "ß" are alphabetized as if they were "ss", pronunciation is not altered, etc etc. And unlike "ü", "ß" provides not a clue to pronunciation for the monolingual anglophone, the most likely user of this encyclopedia. Jd2718 14:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure they're well aware of that, but chose to simplify the situation slightly. In fact, ß is a little more than just a ligature, and acts more like a letter in some ways. Pronunciation does vary (at least since the German spelling reform of 1996) between "ss" and "ß", and predictability of pronunciation is a weak argument anyway, because an English speaker is just as unlikely to get "ü" right as "ß" (and indeed much more so after they've read the opening line of the article). The English-language Wikipedia is de facto a global resource, so although it must be in English, it need not be (and to my knowledge, is not) tailored exclusively to monoglots. You may be unaware of it, but this is all old argumentation, which has been gone over repeatedly. Proposed guidelines which would have effectively outlawed ß have failed to achieve consensus, and hundreds of articles use ß in titles (almost all of the ones which would under German spelling rules, in fact). The arguments were well known to the people at WP:GER, I'm sure (I wasn't involved), when they drafted their guidelines, and they made a conscious decision in favour of diacritics and correct German spelling. A very strong case would need to be made why this article should eb an exception to that guideline, because the same old arguments are unlikely to be enough, I suspect. --Stemonitis 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems strange to leave the decision to precisely the group of people on English Wikipedia who have no difficulty deciphering the strange symbol. Most Anglophones would render it as "B," not close in any way to its pronunciation (unlike the u/ü conflation, where the wrong sound is a related vowel). "Hard to pronounce" and "unpronounceable" are not the same thing. It's a nice thing about Wikipedia that it is possible to correct past mistakes. Further, the wrong convention in 100 articles does not necessitate the wrong convention be used here. Jd2718 01:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
These are still the old arguments, which have been considered and considered insufficient. You have also fallen into the old trap of using excessively emotive language; phrases like "deciphering" and "strange symbol" are readily replaceable with "read" and "character". If you want a blanket ban on ß, then please do not try to achieve it one article at a time, but try to get a consensus elsewhere. The current naming conventions (and WP:RM is based very largely on current naming conventions) are for articles to include ß as appropriate. Look around the German-related pages on Wikipedia. There is a clear consensus to spell German things the German way. It's just another part of a growing trend in the world's media towards nativisation of proper nouns of people and places. --Stemonitis 06:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a B. And no kidding that the members of WP Germany have no problems reading it. And that would be "non-Latin character," btw. Jd2718 07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
cf. list of Latin letters. --Stemonitis 08:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This should be renamed because
1. It is not English = ß -> ss
2. It is not a Latin character "ß" will be interpreted as "B" or β
3. This is not the German language Wikipedia 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly feel the title should stick with the original, especially since it is a name. There is a template for these cases that alerts people to foreign characters and their alternatives that could be used on top of the page after the original (German) title (Template:Foreignchars): {{foreignchars|ö, ß|Hoess}} That way people unfamiliar with German spelling will know that the "B" or "beta"-like character is actually a double-s in German. I've seen this template used on quite a few German pages and it does serve the purpose of clarifying those letters to people who are unfamiliar with them. So instead of moving the page, I'd suggest just adding that template for clarification. - tameeria 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Looking at the redirects linking here, the following are plain wrong spellings:

  • Rudolf Hoss
  • Rudolph Hoss
  • Rudolph Hoess

"Rudolf Höss" is semi-correct, but inconsistent because it only converts one of the two German-alphabet letters in the name, but not the second one. "Rudolf Hoess" converts both letters and would be the correct way of rendering it in non-German alphabet. - tameeria 15:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the usage of Template:Foreignchar and Template:Foreignchars to express the different variations instead of changing the article title. Olessi 18:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One could make this argument for everything, since there are various romanizations for Korean, etc. It would be a stronger argument for Korean. 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Constant blanking of rank chart[edit]

I've followed this article for awhile now and have noticed that a single user (User:Trueblood) keeps vandalizing the page by removing the section on Hoess's dates of rank in the SS. The user has been approached about this [1], but had never really offered an explanation except that he doesnt care for the chart being on the page. When asked to cease blanking the chart, the user has ignored these requests and in the most recent case, has actually admitted to vandalizing the page [2]. I've restored the chart and ask what can be done if this user keeps on removing it? -OberRanks 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

i want the chart gone for reasons i have given above, i will continue to take it off, i called that sloppily vandalism in my own edit summary. i am okay with replacing it with a list of his ranks although since they are also covered in the article i find that slightly redundant. the chart might be of interest for ss rank fetishist like yourself but not of general interest. i thought wanting it gone for esthetic reasons might be enough, i have contributed constructively to the parts of the article that matter a little bit more as you will see if you take the time to look at the part of the discussion page you are refering to. can you say the same?trueblood 16:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It is very hard to follow your broken english, but from what I gather you object to the pictures in the rank chart but not the actual ranks themselves. If that is what this about, then taking away the pictures would be fine. When I came across this article, I found what looked like an unending edit war followed by you making statements that you were vandalizing the rank chart on purpose. When you did not respond to the message above, but instead simple blanked the chart once again, I thought we were dealing with a straight forward vandal. Now that I understand what you are trying to accomplish, it makes a lot more sense. And please be careful about personal attacks. Calling another user an "ss rank fetishist" clearly is against WP:NPA. -OberRanks 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
people usually understand what i have to say, although some people need to point out if i make mistakes, the way you do that and that you manage to remind of the need to stay polite in the same contribution is very charming. what is offensive about calling you a ss rank fetishist? the ss rank part or the fetishist part? before reporting me as a vandal you could have adressed me personally on my talk page. some anon did but that anons last edit was this [[3]], do i need to take him serioustrueblood 16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The policy of No Personal Attacks is that users should make comments based on the contributions and not the contributor. Calling another user a "fetishist" is point blank calling someone a name and it shouldn't be done. As for me not approaching you on your talk page, I thought the talk page of the article would be a better place. As far as that other user you are referring to, it appears to be an open account with multiple users so it's doubtful (although not impossible) that the same person who made that offensive remark was the same one who contacted you on your page. But, I can't say I blame you for not taking seriously an anon account. Anyway, the pictures are gone from the article as you requested. -OberRanks 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
nice trueblood 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
i will henceforth refrain from calling you a ss rank fetishist and leave at ss rang enthusiast.trueblood 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


I noticed that there were mistakes in the description of his death, missing citations and the location where he was hanged. I have uploaded some images I have taken which hopefully will also provide a solid reference for the corrections I have made, sourced directly from the text on the board in front of where he was hung. Bungle44 12:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

About the exact method of his execution: In the book written by the nephew of Alexander who captured him, it seems to indicate that he was climbing on a stool and then he would drop through a trap door. But the photo looks like he was just going to drop from the stool and that's it -- i.e., he would be hanged by the "short drop" method. So two questions: 1. Is it true there was no trapdoor and 2. Was a short drop specifically part of his sentence?

It appears that sometimes the sentences of war criminals were hangings intended to kill the victims severing the spinal cord -- I think most top nazis were hanged in this way but Höss may have had a sentence designed for a slower death by short drop. Editorial comment: Please, let's stop killing people judicially, especially by methods that make me sick to type about.--Jrm2007 (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Switch redirect/target[edit]

As this is english language wikipedia, the correct title should be Hoess, with Höß as a redirect, shouldn't it? --NEMT 02:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Name: Spelling variants[edit]

The spelling Hoeß is used on his assignment order, which represents a contemporary, primary source. Unless we assume his superiors didn't know how to spell his name (which is not impossible - ö vs oe is not obvious as some names exist in both variants), it's among the best sources we have. The spelling is not due to the typewriter; the same document contains several ü. Thus, the variant should be included among the others. Admittedly the very best primary source I found, his own signature on his confession, definitely uses ö. Huon 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, since we're using the English language wikipedia, we could use the English language spelling, Hoess. --NEMT 01:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether the article itself should be named Rudolf Höß or Rudolf Hoess is discussed at length above, with consensus apparently favoring the current position. This also seems to be in line with precedents, compare Gerhard Schröder. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) suggests to use the most commonly used spelling, and while Google is unreliable (because it's smart enough to return hits with spelling variants, too), there seems to be no great preference either way.
Anyway, I was merely suggesting we should mention a spelling variant which we have proof of contemporary use for. Huon 06:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Undelete Request[edit]

To whoever has the power, please undelete the following image:

"Image:Auschappoint.jpg" ‎

It was from the service record of Rudolf Hoess on file with the National Archives and there was no reason for its removal from this article. The image was one of several swept up in a massive deletion campaign. I will investigate and clarify the copyright claim when and if this article should be put back in but it should be a work of the US goverment, copy of a record page on file with the National Archives. -OberRanks 12:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest one of two courses of action: Either go to WP:DRV to have the deletion reviewed, or simply upload it again, this time immediately clarifying the image's copyright status. Huon 13:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, what's up with "Höß"[edit]

Wikipedia blows my mind sometimes. Anyplace else on earth, editors would understand that an English-language publication should use the English alphabet. "Höss", people. These questions aren't hard. Vidor 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. The average English speaker does not know how to type "Höß" on his keyboard. (I had to cut and paste.) And heaven help anyone trying to look up a name from a country that does not use the Latin alphabet. --The Four Deuces (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. So long as the other spellings redirect here, what is the problem? --John (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that IT ISN'T ENGLISH. The title is incorrect. I would move it myself, only there appears to be some kind of administrative block that prevents the article from being moved. Vidor (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up "Germany" and it says "Deutschland redirects here". In English Wikipedia, I would expect all proper nouns to appear under their English spellings, just as the German Wikipedia would use German spellings such as "Amerika" and "Frankreich". Is there any reason why this article should be an exception? --The Four Deuces (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And would someone care to explain that if this article needs to be called Höß, then why, par exemple, is the article on Zhukov entitled "Georgy Zhukov" instead of "Георгий Константинович Жуков"? kovesp (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no understanding of Lågøya, František Palacký, Jan Žižka, or Provençal. They clearly are not English. These signs mean nothing to me. This proves that this problem is a wikipedia-wide one and not one exclusive to this article. Would people be upset if I renamed these aricles Lagoya, Frantisek Palacky, Jan Zizka, or Provencal with no understanding if these are the correct translations? Probably. In addition, none of those articles use this: {{Foreignchars|ö and ß|Rudolf Hoess}} It clarifies the transliterations for everyone at the top of the article, clearing up any confusion. This discussion should be moved to somewhere that they discuss policy on Wikipedia. For future reference, to type an Esszet (ß) when one is editing, use the big box of characters underneath the edit summary section. This tool will probably reduce one's need to cut and paste.--DerRichter (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Worth repeating: IT ISN'T ENGLISH End of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
great points, Vidor, kovesp, The Four Deuces. big agreement! Cramyourspam (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism[edit]

Vandalism corrected, 03:26 GMT, 7 January 2008

There's Hoss' Auschwitz diary published[edit]

I was reading this years ago. -- (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What language version was it or was it the original-- (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)?

I have an idea[edit]

Let's move the Mao Zedong article to 毛泽东. Isn't that a great idea? Why bother with silly ideas like USING ENGLISH LETTERS IN TITLES OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES? Vidor (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You should remove the match from your shift-key, or you won't find many people who are interested in what you have to say. — Mütze (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The use of non-English letters in English-language articles is profoundly stupid. Vidor (talk)
Firstly, Wikipedia is not tailored for monoglots. Secondly, 毛泽东 is chinese characters, so such a comparison isn't relevant - we're dealing with latin characters here, and accordingly, for proper German names, "the Wikipedia convention is to use the 30-letter German alphabet." This has been discussed endlessly, consistently asserted by resonably clear consensus. You've beaten this horse for a long time to no avail - I reckon you might be better off dropping the stick. WilliamH (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a fun stick to wield. The Chinese comparison is precisely on target. The little German squiggle we are using to represent the last two letters of Hoess' name is not a Latin character, and using non-English letters in English-language article titles is really, really silly. Vidor (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a stick of inconsequentiality. The Chinese comparison is irrelevant because that little squiggle you refer to is a Latin character. Wikipedia is not tailored for monoglots. WilliamH (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

George Washington signed his name with the long s. Let's move his article to "George Wafhington" or some approximation thereof. Vidor (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

...but since there are only 24 Google hits for "George Wafhington" president, compared to 4.7 million for "George Washington" president, that isn't how reliable sources refer to him, so Wikipedia shan't either. Secondly, George Washington is not subject to German naming conventions, so further comparison still isn't relevant. Please, drop the stick. WilliamH (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
ß is a Latin alphabet ligature. Jared Preston (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all those who prefer the article title to remain as it is. His name was Rudolf Höß. It's a matter of learning a couple of simple shortcuts on a computer keyboard, and "Rudolf Hoess" links to here anyway, so get over it. Lexo (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Or, we could type the article's name in the English alphabet, as appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Sometimes this place is very strange. Vidor (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"See Also"[edit]

I am removing the see also section because its purpose is served at the top of the page where it says: not to be confused with Rudolf Hess. Just wanted to provide an explanation. --DerRichter (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was redundant. WilliamH (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many photographs ?[edit]

The Wiki contributor who took the pictures of the current state of the place where Höss was hanged and released the pictures to the public domain is to be commended. But we might one too many! These are two nearly identical pictures. I propose that the first picture is deleted and only the second one is left, i.e. the one where the commemorative plaque is shown and the hanging gallows itself can be seen in the background. In fact, this would be the caption of the sole picture, i.e. "Here is the commemorative etc etc. In the background is the gallows etc". -The Gnome (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Rudolf Höss -- Aervanath (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Propose Rudolf HößRudolf Hoess
I do realise this proposed move has been discussed before without consensus.

First of all, there is potential for conflict between Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions. But if there is a conflict, the former must prevail since it is an accepted convention, whereas the latter is only a proposed policy, so it essentially has the status of a guideline.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) states: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." On google scholar, "Rudolf Höß" yields 265 hits, the majority of which are written in German. "Rudolf Hoss" yields 292 hits. "Rudolf Hoess" yields 406, indicating that it is probably the most favoured spelling in academic works written in English. Encyclopedia Brittanica uses "Hoess". The English-language translation of the autobiography of the person is currently published under the name "Rudolf Hoess".

Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions states, "The Wikipedia convention is to use the 30-letter German alphabet in proper names, in line with the broader Wikipedia convention of using local Latin alphabets." The page offers no evidence of such a convention beyond stating that it is so. As stated above, this position does not accurately reflect the current Wikipedia convention, which is found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions aspires to become convention, but until it is, the current conventions should prevail.

Finally, note the spelling of other notable people with names that have similar German spellings. As the most obvious example, the page is found at Rudolf Hess, not "Rudolf Heß". — Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support IIRC, there's also a policy page that says that other than diacritic modified versions of the 26-letters, no other letters should be used in page titles. (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think so. Actually, we have a guideline page that says "Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used." Jafeluv (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The current title reads as "Rudolf Höb" to anyone who doesn't know German. Also, as Good Ol'factory points out, "Hoess" seems to be the more common spelling in English language sources. Jafeluv (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    I don't want to enter the realm of personal attacks, but you created a page called Ismo Alanko Säätiö! I have no idea what that would come out to in English. I don't know Finnish but I do know that it is a proper noun so why would I attempt to transliterate those symbols. So what is the difference? --DerRichter (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    Hehe, nice finding! The difference is that in the few English sources we have for the band, its name is written as "Ismo Alanko Säätiö" ([4], [5]). "Ismo Alanko Saatio" might be a possible variant, and that's how English-speaking people would read the name anyway. The version with diacritics is used because that's the way reliable sources write the name. It then comes down to this: how do English language sources write "Rudolf Höß"? Jafeluv (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as usage. The sentence from WP:GERCON Where an English form of name for a king or prince is in common use, Wikipedia employs that as the headword for an article should be extended to all personal names; why not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Very much against a move for the simple reason that "Rudolf Hoess" was never in any way the guy's actual name. He never wrote it, spoke it, or signed it that way and the spelling was actually a creation by 1950s historians of the US and UK to make it easier for non-German readers to understand. A note about the english version of the name should be in the article, but this article should in no way be moved. -OberRanks (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Editors with actual Sprachgefühl would have capitalized English correctly. This should be given as much attention as a request to move de:Kalifornien to its "real" name of "California" would be given at the German Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Please note that making comments about another editor's typing skills and/or grammer unrelated to the actual conversation about the article is in violation of WP:CIV. This is a vote, so I voted. And, as far as my knowledge of this, I am a World War II historian with 21 years of study into the SS and SS service records and speak fluent German. Every serious text about this man spells his name the German way which is why I oppose the move. -OberRanks (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Your fluency in German is evident - and irrelevant. This is the English Wikipedia, and fluency in English is what we seek. Books that use Hoess in English include both Hoess's autobiography, Commandant of Auschwitz, recently reissued, and Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich p 967. (The other translation, Death Dealer, uses Höss, not Höß; that would be second best.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is irrelevant (didn't mean to wave it around like that). I'll give you that "Höss" is equally as common, if not more. Maybe move it to that instead. Its 3 to 1 now so the move probably will happen like you want it. -OberRanks (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Partial Support for Höss. I was on the fence with Hoess, however Höss seems more appropriate than the current title. Although it does indeed still have a character not common in the english language, I think it's the best of both (translates better into english without being too controversial about it not being his "official" surname). Bungle (talkcontribs) 16:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I would be okay with a move to Höss and in fact think that would be the bext choice here. -OberRanks (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per previous discussion on this page, because a Rudolf Hoess never existed. The English Wikipedia naming policy even states that Google hits are not to be trusted. I don't know why they would ever be considered reliable. And this is not the place to take up a crusade against diacritics when Lågøya, František Palacký, Jan Žižka, and Provençal all use them in the page title. I used these examples just because they were easy to find but also because it shows the problem exists with Romance, Germanic, and Slavic languages. I mostly oppose changing this page when all others remain the same because I think we should either be consistent or just leave the issue alone. Just for the record, I completely support helping lay readers understand the diacritics, but I think that redirects in combination with this line do the job: The title of this article contains the characters ö, and ß. Where they are unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Rudolf Hoess.--DerRichter (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment why is it that German has a favored status on Wikipedia when compared to other non-English languages, like Greek which English monoglots would more likely know the lettering to since it appears in Math and Physics classes. This seems like a systematic bias on Wikipedia with the appearance of Western/Central European exceptionalism. (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know a clear answer to that. I would hope that its not a systemic bias but I think in this case, I actually was trying to point out that the use of diacritics is not just an issue with proper nouns from German but lots of other languages with Latin alphabets. If you think this bias is pervasive, I apologize and support you in addressing the issue on a Wikipedia-wide basis. I'll admit it probably doesn't look right that my username is derived from German literature, but we should probably keep the rest of the discussion here on the proposal at hand. --DerRichter (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The anon ip speaks with wisdom. German articles do kind of get special treatment here. In fact, Nazi articles on Wikipedia are better than some textbooks I've read. For myself, I think its a fascination about how evil these men really were. The fact that the SS even existed - a vast state run organziation devoted to the sole purpose of evil, is a remarkable example of what humans are capable of. -OberRanks (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I normally support using diacritics for titles that are personal names. However, diacritics are different from extensions. Diacritics (e.g., "ö") can be "read through," i.e., ignored when read by someone unfamiliar with them, but extensions (e.g., "ß," "ð") cannot normally be. (I once expanded this argument here.) By these criteria, the target should be Rudolf Höss. But if Rudolf Hoess is overwhelmingly more common in English sources then go with that. — AjaxSmack 15:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rudolf Hoess is better than Höß. (says someone with a name that is more confusing than informative) Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment (nominator). Some have expressed support for Höss over Hoess. I would be fine with either, and I agree that while non-English "letters" are almost always avoided, diacritics are not avoided in the same way. I chose "Hoess" only because it seemed to be more common in English sources, not because I viewed it as somehow superior. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Most everyone who has opposed the move has said that "Höss" would be an acceptable move as it gives reference to the German texts and the subject actually did sometimes write his name this way. I would say that the way it stands now, there is consensus for "Höss" but not for "Hoess" since Rudolf never wrote or spoke his namke the second way. We might actually be able to close the debate and move the article if that's okay with everyone. -OberRanks (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

birth date[edit]

User:Oldfirehall has changed the year of birth from 1900 to 1901 a couple of times now. It is given as 1900 by the Jewish Virtual Library [6], among others. Seems to be sneaky vandalism. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not having been familiar with all the academic work on Auschwitz I missed Fritjoh Meyer rediscovery of an important footnote from the Irving trial ( van Pelt's written testimony). Van Pelt's discovery of a memo shows that Hoss testimony was seriously in error. Meyer, a proHolocaust historian/editor...., seems to think that most of Hoss' confessions were enhanced by torture - just because they were impossible in light of the testimony in the Irving trial from Lipstadt's witnesses. (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't hung or executed, He died in Spandau Prison — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliceOfTweets (talkcontribs) 14:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the previous commenter is thinking of Rudolph Hess (Heß), Hitler's onetime deputy, and not Rudolf Höss (Hoess, Höß), the Auschwitz commander. It was Hess who flew to Scotland in 1941 and who spent 40 years in Spandau Prison. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Mengele Hoess Kramer Thumann.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Mengele Hoess Kramer Thumann.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Replaced "hoff"[edit]

"Timeline of promotion / Dates of rank": Because I didn't find an English meaning and neither does the word exist in German, I suppose the rank "SS-hoff" to be a typo or something. Therefore, I replaced it by "aspirant", since "Anwärter" is the expression given in the German article, and that translates to "aspirant". Best wishes, Tubifex (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

what is star-shaped uniform decoration?[edit]

i keep seeing a star-shaped decoration on his uniform in some photos, but never any explanation of it. any clues? it is worn on the pocket opposite of the usual one for their decorations. see him second from left in this photo.

File:USHMM 34755 Soletal Solahutte img61 mengele hoess.png
he's 2nd from left. what's that big star on his uniform pocket?
Its World War I Turkish War Medal -- (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

many thanks! i'd long wondered. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nuremberg trials[edit]

Hoess only appeared at the IMT he did not appear at any of the NMTs, I've corrected this several times, always for it to be deleted and the incorrect theory that he testified at the Pohl & Farben trial propagated. HE WAS DEAD BEFORE THE FARBEN TRIAL EVEN STARTED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaving Auschwitz[edit]

I glad to see the commandant of this page has finally stopped insisting Hoess appeared at NMTs 4 & 6. Some form of revisionism I see.

Hoess' affidavit 3868-PS (and these parts were read by Amen to Hoess in the witness box) states: - "I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943" - "I personally supervised executions at Auschwitz until first of December 1943" - "On 1 December 1943 I became Chief of Amt I in Amt Group D of the WVHA" - Hoess also stated that morning at the IMT: "I was commander at Auschwitz from May 1940 until December 1943."

Yet this page claims, with no source—contradicting Liebehenschel's page—that Hoess was replaced on Nov 10, 1943.

Who is the commandant of this page? Colonel Klink! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WHy C and B class?[edit]

Howcome this article is only is given C class as military history article, and B class as biography article? What is missing for improving its quality? (I am asking because the corresponding Swedish article is suggested for the "good article" classification.) Mange01 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a highly political page due to the significance of Auschwitz in the Holocaust. Therefore it can not be 100% accurate, as it could land many Europeans who link to it, in court on a Holocaust denial charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Idiotic troll posting - old, but please ignore. (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

To the editors of this page. This is an incredibly important page. Please have it all corrected, edited and looked over, as it pertains to the Holocaust. Thank you. (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What is with the Final Quote?[edit]

All the previous quotes and explications of writings of Höss in the article state clearly and unequivocally that he had full knowledge, executive power, and first-hand experience of the mass murder that was carried out in his camp. But the final quote says "Most of the terrible and horrible things that took place there I learned only during this investigation and during the trial itself." and that these "terrible and horrible things" were carried out only "supposedly" under his orders, *as if* he did not clearly and directly order mass-murder at all. Is this an appropriate quote to end with? Should it not at least be glossed to explain that the "terrible and horrible things" here referred to are things even more terrible and horrible than the (to Höss) routine murder of tens of thousands of people? As it stands it reads as if he is saying he was unaware of mass murder - comprising most of terrible horrible things from a sane perspective. I am not sure what the explanation of the final quote is, and I am sure that there could be many, but to end the article with this quote seems inappropriate. --Timtak (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation request[edit]

A pronunciation of his full name at the beginning of the article would be a considerable improvement to the article. If a native German speaker could please add this, it would be greatly appreciated.Hoops gza (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

As a very rough guide the German name 'Höss' is pronounced similarly to the English word 'hearse'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

I don't want to bring up the lemma discussion again. You english guys should use the letters which you are capable of (although I don't understand why you do not use "oe" instead of "ö" but "ss" instead of "ß"). But I think at least the first sentence should clearify the situation. "Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Höss (also spelled Höß, Hoeß, or Hoess) (25 November 1901[2][1] – 16 April 1947)". His only real german surname was Höß not Hoeß or Hoess. This should be pointed out somewhere in my opinion.--Ickerbocker (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I won't object but why should it? As long as it stays in - I've seen him referred to as "Hoess" many times. 18:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinsgezinde (talkcontribs)

Hoess's capture[edit]

According to Episode 5 of the BBC's documentary, Auschwitz: The Nazis and 'The Final Solution', Hoess's capture and the circumstances surrounding it played out a little differently. There is already sufficient information on his capture in the previous paragraph, and there is no need for such depth when there are contradicting stories from reliable sources.Hoops gza (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Error in Dates of Rank[edit]

It's noted that he attained the rank of SS-Hauptscharführer on March 1st, 1935. However, it is listed out of chronological order with the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does Hoess exaggerate the death toll?[edit]

Hoess says he was responsible for killing 2.5 million. Newer research indicates that the figure was closer to 1 million. Why would he exaggerate? In the interview with Hoess by psychiatrist Gustave Gilbert's colleague Leon N. Goldensohn[1] there may be a clue to this.

NOTE: The Norwegian edition is all I have at hand.[2] The quotes below are approximate re-translations from Norwegian to English, so if they are ever used for anything, someone has to check them (and the page number) against an English edition.

About 7 pages into the April 9th 1946 interview (p.436 in Norwegian edition) Hoess is quoted as saying: "Eichmann told me, before he left to [report to] Himmler that in Auschwitz alone 2.5 million people were killed by gassing." When asked whether perhaps he thought the number was higher, perhaps 3-4 million, he answers: "No, I think 2.5 million is too much, but I can't prove it."

It seems to me that it is not Hoess, but Eichmann who is exaggerating. And he is doing so because he is preparing his report to Himmler, and he is hoping that the higher number will ingratiate him with his boss. This is supported by the impression that Hoess seems a strangely detached, calm, objective reporter. Why would he suddenly exaggerate? Eichmann, on the other hand, has a motive. Hoess, in his dogged, plodding manner, feels duty-bound to accept Eichmann's number, and this is as close to a protest against him that he can get... Filursiax (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow Original Research, which is what your speculation is. Without Reliable Sources, you're just wasting space. (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Goldensohn, Leon N. 2004. The Nurnberg Interviews. London: Pimlico
  2. ^ Goldensohn, Leon N. 2004. Nürnberg-intervjuene. [Oslo]: Damm

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rudolf Höss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


Hoess was severely beaten, whipped, force fed large amounts of alcohol and then two British officers (Butler and Jones) prodded him with axe handles for several days until he signed a confession in English, a language he did not understand.

Since he was hanged, his 'confession' hasd been found to be completely false - he even mentioned a concentration camp that never existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back this up? See WP:V. clpo13(talk) 22:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have 2 following sources:[1][2]--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah.... no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)