Posted on 07/21/2011 6:11:44 AM PDT by markomalley
The grave holding the remains of Adolf Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess has been destroyed to stop it being used as a pilgrimage site by neo-Nazis.
Hess's bones were exhumed at the graveyard in the town of Wunsiedel, southern Germany, early on Wednesday.
The remains will be cremated and then scattered at sea.
Hess was captured after flying to Britain in 1941 and sentenced to life in prison. He killed himself in a Berlin jail in 1987 at the age of 93.
As he requested in his will, he was buried in the Bavarian town of Wunsiedel, where his family had a holiday home and where his parents were already interred.
The local Lutheran church which supervises the cemetery gave its permission for the burial at the time, ruling that the wishes of the deceased could not be ignored, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reports.
But they and local people have since become concerned by the number of far-right groups visiting the grave. Each year on the anniversary of his death, neo-Nazis have attempted to staged a march to the cemetery, saluting the grave with its epitaph "I dared", and laying floral wreaths.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
No doubt these are the sort of "far-right groups" which seek vast expansion of government power, diminishment of all individual rights, and overwhelming emphasis on the Collective good of society, as interpreted by a political elite.
Noticed how they attached far-right groups as neo-nazis. Of course, the government destroying a grave is also a concern.
It’s a bunch of people idolizing some dead guy.
They do the same thing to Elvis and Jim Morrison.
If they were all buried in the same cemetary, it would be amusing to watch the interaction between the people there to see the dead nazi guy and the people who wandered in to see Morrison and the King...
Feed the fish. Send his worshipers with him.
“right” and “left” don’t mean quite the same the same thing here as they do over there. Similar, but not enough to draw that sort of comparison.
Good catch on that use of far right. Now if he had far right support does that mean those like Stalin, whom Nazi Germany hated, are far left and his bones should be strewn on the seas too?
They’ll still go bak to “the spot”...so I doubt that this will do any good...because...”They’re NUTS”.
Political philosophies, if they are to be expressed in binary terms, are either Collectivist or Individualist.
Fascism, Nazism, Socialism and Communism are certainly Collectivist.
American Conservatism is certainly Individualist.
“Fascism, Nazism, Socialism and Communism are certainly Collectivist.”
AND... totalitarian!
far-right means different things in different places.
far-right is usually re-actionary: a person or group of people who opposes governmental/ social change to the point of returning to a previous form of government/ society.
far-right americans want to return to founding principals of america.
nazis were revolutionaries 100 years ago, but neo-nazis wanting to return to that way are considered far-right. same with “far-right” muslims- ones who want to return to their old sharia laws.
Why do you think there's no grave marker for Osama.
In principal, I agree with you, but the way I read the article, the church is asking the government to assist with disposing of Hess due to the nuisance that goes with his grave.
The way I look at it, Hess made a request in his will. The church was under no obligation to honor it, no more than you would be if I requested in my will to be buried in your front yard. The church, apparently not foreseeing the cult worship, ponied up the space (apparently under some type of lease arrangement with the Hess family). The lessee has now become a nuisance, and the church is seeking the government's assistance with the 'eviction.' Happens all the time here in the US when Sheriff's serve eviction notices to rowdy tenants.
While the church may have been trying to do the right thing, IMHO the corpse of a dead rat on the side of the road is due more respect than any nazi true believer.
In the 21st century, "rightwing" means "the bad guys as defined by the offical opinion makers".
And "mainstream" means "collectivst revolutionaries who want to get rid of everything that works".
And "leftwing" is an antiquated word which is no longer used because the official opinion makers found that it didn't poll well.
The National Socialists were not traditionalists at all. Their economics was Marxist, they hated the old German and Austrian aristocracies, and they loathed the Christian religion.
I’ve never understood why the Allies weren’t interested in pursuing the Nazi leaders who escaped to Argentina. Mossad finally caught Adolf Eichmann in 1960, but missed Josef Mengele who was living nearby. Eichmann had changed his name, but his sons didn’t change their names. The story of the operation to kidnap Eichmann appears in The House on Garibaldi Street (1975). Mosssad believed and Eichmann also later lead them to believe that Eichmann had been living in a community of Nazis. Mossad apparently never pursed any of them.
How much does it cost to exhume a body and move a gravesite?
Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to just post a COP nearby to shoo away these undesirables... like in the OLD days?
The only problem they need to work around is the aryan master race part.
Sadly, I’m inclined to agree with you.
Rudolf Hess, while a student at the University of Munich, wrote a prize-winning essay answering the question: “What Kind of a Man Will Lead Germany Back to Her Previous Heights?” When he met Adolph Hitler in 1920, he realized the similarities between what he had written and the man Hitler.
THE ESSAY OUTLINED THE FOLLOWING:
First and foremost, the leader had to be a man of the people, a man whose roots were deeply embedded in the masses so that he would know how to relate to them psychologically. Only such a man could gain the trust of the people, but, this was only to be his “public” image.
Second, in reality such a man should have nothing in common with the masses; for when the need arose, he should not flinch from bloodshed. Great questions are always decided by “blood and iron.” The “public” image must be kept separate from the actual performance.
Third, he had to be a man who was willing to trample on his closest friends to achieve his goals. He must be a man of extreme hardness and as the occasions arise, he must crush people with the heel of his boots.
Hitler was taken by the essay and was very impressed with Hess a man who had such uncanny insight and vowed he would be that man. He would give the appearance of being one of the masses, but in reality he would be quite another. When brutality was called for, he could act with force and decisiveness. He would do what the individuals among the masses could not. He would not flinch from cruelty. “The German people must be misled if the support of the masses is required,” he mused.
Little wonder Hitler and Hess became close friends.
Privately Hitler prepared for war; publicly he gave speeches about his desire for peace. Privately he enjoyed pornography; publicly he insisted on right conduct, no swearing, no off-color jokes in his presence. At times he could be charming and forgiving; most other times he was monstrously cruel, as when he insisted that those who conspired against him be “hung on a meat hook and slowly strangled to death with piano wire, the pressure being periodically released to intensify the death agonies.”
Privately (and sometimes publicly) he prided himself in his honesty, yet often he reveled in his ability to deceive.
Hitler engineered the atrocities of “the final solution.” He was a man of many of contradictions. He saved dried bread to feed squirrels and birds and just months after coming to power signed three pieces of legislation to protect animals; yet he worked himself into a frenzy of delight over the pictures of great capitals in Europe in flames.
He could weep with tenderness when talking to children and rejoice over the completion of another concentration camp. Compassionate and even generous with family and friends, he would become filled with vindictive rage at anyone including close friends who stood in the way of his agenda. He could be charming or brutal, generous or savage.
Hitler’s dictatorship enjoyed such wide support of the people. Perhaps never in history was a dictator so well liked. He had the rare gift of motivating a nation to want to follow him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.