Talk:Rudolf Hess/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Arrest

The Olivia Newton-John page states that Hess was arrested by Brin Newton-John, but without a source. Anyone here know anything about it? 159.92.30.108 16:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family

His fahter's name was Johann Fritz Heß, not Fritz H. Heß. Heß and Ilse Pröhl married in 1927, not in 1928. It seems like no one red "Die Frauen der Nazis III" (The Nazi's Women Part III) by Anna Maria Sigmund.

[edit] Rudolf Hess vs Rudolf Heß

from the village pump

Schnee and I have a question about the following articles - Rudolf Hess and Rudolf Heß. He moved the article from Hess to Heß (making Hess a redirect), and I moved it back again. We talked it over (I am copying our discussion below) and we wanted to get everyone's opinion on which one to make the article and which one to make a redirect . It basically boils down to - Hess is the way it is always spelled in English, but Heß is the proper german way of spelling it.

(From User talk:Raul654)
Hi, with regard to the question which of the two pages given above should be a redirect to the other one - it may be true that "Hess" is the traditional english spelling, but the correct spelling of the (german) name is "Heß", so don't you think that Rudolf Hess should redirect to Rudolf Heß instead of vice versa? Just a thought. :) -- Schnee 01:37, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
(From User talk:Schneelocke)
My thoughts on the matter were basically:
  1. This is the english wikipedia - I don't think it's a trivial matter that the titles should be only standard english-language characters, or else no one can directly link to Rudolf Heß without copying it first, like I did.
  2. Like I said before, Hess is the way it is spelled in English. (I've never seen it any other way) As precedent, I'd point out the fact that Italia (how Italians refer to Italy) is a redirect to Italy, Deutschland (as a disambig page) to Germany, etc etc. We usually put articles under the name by which they are most commonly known, which is not always the most "proper" name. Where languages are concered, we go with the standard English version.

--Raul654 02:09, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There's a difference here, though. "Germany" or "Italy" or translations of the respective names, whereas "Rudolf Hess" is merely a spelling variation of the correct name (Heß). It may be true that it's more difficult to directly link to Rudolf Heß than to Rudolf Hess for someone who can't directly type a ß, but since one of the articles will always redirect to the other, I think that's irrelevant. And for what it's worth, there are several examples where latin-1 characters are used for article titles: take a look at, for example, Kraków, Eugène Ionesco, Josef Hiršal and others.
Furthermore, the fact that this is the English Wikipedia does not mean anything - to quote from Wikipedia:POV, "Also be careful to avoid an English-speaking Point Of View. Although country-specific and similar POVs are often easy to spot, this can be harder to spot." As said above already, "Rudolf Heß" *is* the correct spelling, so this is what should be used for the article. -- Schnee 13:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You make a good point. Here's what I propose - let's copy the above discussion to the Wikipedia:Village pump as a request for comments and see what everyone says. That way, should another issue like this come up again, the community can enfore uniformity. --Raul654 19:48, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Good idea. Let's do that. -- Schnee 21:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) suggests using English unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the anglicised form, which in this case it isn't as there are only 60 Google hits for "Rudolf Heß" if you limit the search to English pages, compared to over 15000 for "Rudolf Hess". Angela. 06:19, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree: use Rudolf Hess as the almost universally-used name in English. In addition, I believe German spelling reform now means that Hess and not Heß is the proper spelling in German as well, though I'm not sure whether this is applied to names or not. --Delirium 09:57, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)

The spelling reform is not applied to names. The reform is absurd (I am a native German speaker), but it isn't that absurd ;-) Captain-c 17:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the English page should be Rudolf Hess, but I wonder about the google numbers. A search for "Rudolf Heß" is extended by google to "Rudolf Hess" (at least if I use google.co.uk or google.com from Germany - even with the link above! -, I'm not sure if this applies universally, and finds some 8.000 pages). If I search for "Rudolf Heß" -Hess, it still get's 2.800 pages. Only if one turns it to "english language only", the page number is reduced to 45. -- till we *) 12:58, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say put it at "Hess". Practicality should be more important than issues of whether English or German speakers are using the more "correct" form of the name. The practical issues here are (1) in other articles, it's marginally better to link to the page itself than a redirect to the page, and (2) if you're writing an article in English, you'll always want the visible link text to be "Hess", not "Heß". If the article were at "Heß", then links would thus best be [[Rudolf Heß|Rudolf Hess]] rather than [[Rudolf Hess]]. That wouldn't be very intuitive, and I don't think it's worth it for a point of linguistic etiquette. If the issue needs highlighting, then the article itself should do that, not the title of the article. Onebyone 16:05, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Google tells me there's "about 87" hits for Heß on English pages. I checked some, and many of them are either quoting German text or belong to neo nazi organizations. I say, go with Hess. Zocky 16:18, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the article should live at Rudolf Hess (much as I love the ß) and want to add a little note thanking Raul and Schnee for demonstrating how disputes on Wikipedia should happen: polite disagreement (not just caving when someone disagrees with you), the decision to make sure the community is involved, and an overall spirit of Wikilove. I'm happier just having read this thread. :) Jwrosenzweig 16:31, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Andrewa 21:59, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Aww... I'm flattered :) --Raul654 07:20, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. We should no more have an article at Heß than at Wien. RickK 05:08, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are lots of folks like Albrecht Dürer, Ernst Thälmann or Franz Josef Strauß. Should they all be changed to Albrecht Duerer, Ernst Thaelmann and Franz Josef Strauss if google gave more hits with the "wrong" spelling? Or do we make an exception especially for Rudolf? -- User:Moehre 08:04, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Interesting point. As an English speaker with no knowledge of German, I'd have looked for Ernst Thälmann under Ernst Thalmann, which isn't even a redirect. This article is a stub anyway, so perhaps a name change and redirect creation will happen when the article is written.
I think the point about Wien is well made above. The English spelling is Vienna of course. The only consistent and enforceable policy is to use English spellings. Alternatively, we could change the policy to say that so long as the appropriate redirects are there, either spelling can be used for the article. That strikes me as more Wikipedic, but may promote fruitless revert wars. I'd leave the policy as is.
And as the policy stands, the examples given and many more should eventually get changed. It doesn't seem all that urgent to me. Andrewa 14:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I tend to favor the actual spelling of anyone's proper name (thus Rudolf Heß not Rudolf Hess). However, it becomes quickly obvious to me that while German uses mostly the same alphabet as English, difficulty in being consistent on this will arise for all languages which do not share the English alphabet — and becoming downright impossible for most Asian languages. So the only consistent approach is to transliterate these names into "English". Nonetheless, that is not necessarily my vote, as it could be argued that this Wikipedia is for English and perhaps other european users primarily, and the case could be made to use "correct" spellings for such proper names, and transliterate all others. - Marshman 22:17, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And what about Franz Josef Strauß? WhisperToMe 22:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I unilaterally started converting him & his airport to Strauss, citing the naming convention which is fairly unambiguous on the point. Your average english speaker, I think, probably neither knows how to type ß into a computer, nor pronounce it when seen. Translation to ss, by the premise of this argument, provides such users with a means of pronouncing the article which seems a positive sort of a virtue. --Tagishsimon 22:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I moved it back as I learned on #wikipedia that ß is allowed in the article title. WhisperToMe 02:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That the character ß is allowed is irrelevant. It is not used in English except in very pedantic contexts. It is not even used in Swiss German. A Google test:

Search string:                     All Languages    English only                   
"Rudolph Hess" -"Rudolph Heß"              4,990           4,070        
"Rudolph Heß" -"Rudolph Hess"                 46               8

This is probably not entirely accurate, as Google does not always act with total consistancy on tests of letters which it normally equates. But I think it makes the point. English Wikipedia's policy is to use normal English forms of names, those found normally in other English texts. We use Jupiter (not the native Latin Iuppiter), Odin (not Old Norse Óðinn), Montreal which is the standard form in English Canada for that city despite some style sheets used in particular Canadian government departments (not the French form Montréal), Jesus Christ (not something like Iesous Khristos or even Yeshua` hammeshiah) and so forth. Other language Wikipedias, so far as I know, do exactly the same thing, rendering names in the most familiar form used in each language. So do other encyclopedias and reference books in various languages for the most part. That's the fact. It's what almost everyone does. If there are strongly competing forms of a name within a language or a new standard emerges outside Wikipedia which is obviously catching on, then it is reasonable that Wikipedia should go with the more authentic form. Otherwise not. Anyone who wants to innovate on this in any language must first popularize the more authentic form outside Wikipedia to the point that it becomes at least a popular form within that language even if not the most common form. Until then, for example, Caesar in German will remain Kaiser. Jallan 15:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You mispelled "Rudolf", when you made your Google test. Mütze 21:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable information sources?

Can somebody please confirm are the following information regarding Hess reliable?

- "[the journey] was actually a scheme conceived by James Bond author Ian Fleming". What other sources are used other than the book? Isn't this the "official" british version rather than a fact? (just wondering)

- "He degenerated mentally and apparently lost most of his memory". How about this, where has the information came from? Who else was allowed to speak to imprisoned Hess other than his son (i.e. reliable source)?

  • I can't confirm or deny the other claims (I didn't write any of them), but I believe I heard this one on the history channel. If I recall correctly, the guards did talk with Hess on occasion. He was struck with a terrible case of amnesia. The guards were not sure whether or not he was faking though. --Raul654 10:45, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In addition, wasn't it true (rather than just a rumour), that Soviet Union was about to release Hess in the same year that he died (1987)? Janne (posti_roska@hotmail.com)

I doubt it Janne, the Russians originally wanted Hess to receive the death penalty, the Americans and the British didn't hence the life imprisonment. PhilipPage 23:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reliable sources???

(From Captain-c) I've read a lot about Rudolf Heß, but never came across the story with Ian Flemming. That might be a good invention of him, but it isn't a historical fact. I'd rather remove this odd story from the article.

The same accounts for the speculation about Hess selecting the date of his flight after a planet constellation. I think this is mere speculation.

The sentence "He degenerated mentally and apparently lost most of his memory" is speculation, too.

I think, I'll rewrite the article in the future. But for now I think these three points should be removed from the article.

I've put that stuff in its own paragraph and added some 'it is claimed'. Odd story, though. - David Gerard 10:33, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] structure

(From Captain-c)

I think the article should be structured in maybe 5 paragraphs:

1. short biography

2. Hess, Hitler and the NSDAP until 1941

3. Hess' flight to England

4. Nuremberg Trials and Spandau prison

5. Neo-Nazi commemoration

I'm not sure about the titles, but think the structure would be good. What do you think?

Maybe another paragraph "Myths and legends about Hess" could be fitted in. Would be the right place for the Flemming and the astrology story. (Captain-c 1-12-04)

"Claims concerning Hess' flight"? I've put the book's full title and author in as well. Current structure of article is much as you suggest (1 and 2 combined, and the odd claim in the middle). If we could just find a second source or debunking of the Fleming story ... - David Gerard 12:53, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
OK. I've separated out the claims, noted they're from a single source and hence removed the 'disputed' header. The article looks good to me. Anyone got problems with the current version, feel free to change it back :-) - David Gerard 13:07, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

What a dreadful article this is - like most articles at Wikipedia dealing with Nazis, I must say. Why does this subject attract so many cranks? Never mind, I know the answer. I am adding this to my list of "articles to completely rewrite when I get time." Adam 13:13, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Rather than just blanket criticism of this article, would you care to elaborate on your claims? →Raul654 13:25, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Do we really need to put revisionist before the IHR link? POV? I put it in considering the link itself would say all that was needed. - David Gerard 13:41, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, I like it as-is. →Raul654 13:51, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hess impostor?

Is anyone familiar with the theory that the man who flew to Britain in 1941 claiming to be Rudolph Hess was in fact an impostor? I came across some book in a used book store a few years ago about this; now i'm sort of wishing I'd bought it. I don't remember the details, but I did a quick google search and got some hits. I don't suppose there's any truth to it, but is it worth addressing in the entry as a conspiracy theory? -R. fiend

Not without a source, I'd think. (First I've heard of it!) If the man who flew to Britain wasn't Hess, then who was locked up in Spandau? - David Gerard 18:30, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

I believe the book I glanced at years ago may have been "The Murder of Rudolph Hess" by Hugh Thomas, who I guess was a doctor who examined Hess and found some descrepencies. The point of the book was that Hess wasn't the man in Spandau either. I guess maybe he even could still be on the loose somewhere. I doubt the argument is terribly convincing, and this theory may well be too obscure to warrant inclusion in the article, but I thought I'd mention it. Somewhere I came across a description of Thomas's book as a "bestseller", which would perhaps imply that the theory was somewhat well known for a time, however since it seems very difficult to find a copy of this book now that description may have been quite a hyperbole. In any case a google search of Rudolph Hess impostor does lead to a few sites that mention this theory, mostly based on Thomas's book I would guess. -R. fiend


Well, I think there should be added some more facts about Hess first, before we start discussing all the conspiracy theories about him. IMHO there are enough speculations and absurd theories in the article right now. And yes, I think you're right and it's the book by Hugh Thomas, I came across with it a while ago, but it was too absurd IMO. Captain-c 16:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thomas's argument involves a examination of Hess that he (Thomas) personally performed in Spandau. Hess had been shot some years earlier, but Thomas found no evidence (i.e., scarring) on the man he examined in Spandau. When Thomas questioned Hess about the wound, Hess refused to answer and never spoke to Thomas again. Thomas's examination of x-rays taken of Hess in Spandau also showed no evidence that he had sustained a gunshot to the chest. Scars corresponding to wounds in the left arm and the head that Hess is known to have sustained were also "missing", leading Thomas to the conclusion that the man in Spandau was, indeed, someone other than R.Hess.

Further to discussion above re Hess and Ian Fleming, I've come across a curiosity concerning Peter Fleming, brother of Ian. In 1940, the year before the capture of Hess, Peter published the novel The Flying Visit, in which Hitler is captured in England after being shot down while watching a bombing raid. Strange... Max

[edit] "General" Goebbels?

re "...became focused on the generals, Hermann Göring, Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler."

A minor quibble, but was Goebbels a general? I'm aware that there was some blurring of military and civilian roles in Nazi Germany, so this is certainly possible. Even the article on Himmler doesn't use the term 'general', but perhaps "Reichsführer" connotes an equivalent rank. --Rapscallion 03:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the generals + göring + goebbels + himmler is meant

[edit] Why exactly he was found guilty is not specifically stated.

The article does not specifically (only generically) state why he was convicted in the Nurenberg. Someone should add details, e.g. he was proven to have raped six jewish girls, hanged three rabbies, burnt seven synangogues, skinned gays, etc. Without specifics the nazi will continue to say he was condemned in a pre-arranged trial.

  • What a load of crap. And if rape was a war crime, they'd have to have sentenced 3/4 of the Russian and 1/4 of the western allied army to death.
Please sign your posts and there is no need to be rude. I think the writer above was simply using these as examples...not as facts. --Maustrauser 11:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is similar to a question I had. Why did this man, who obviously left before the full force of the Final Solution and with some sort of peace in mind, get tried for crimes against peace and imprisoned for life? Why was everyone else released and him left the sole inhabitant of the prison?--Prosfilaes 18:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not last person at the Tower

The article on the Tower of London states there were prisioners during the fifties, so I'm deleting the misinformation about Heß being its last prisioner.

[edit] Vegetarian

I notice this article has Category:Vegetarians. Hess being vegetarian isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, so what is the source for this? Is it anything to with the "Hitler was a vegetarian" urban legend? - Vclaw 16:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as no one has replied with a source for this, I have now removed this category. Vclaw 28 June 2005 12:38 (UTC)

[edit] British SAS vs. British SIS

Both Rudolf Hess and Wolf Rüdiger Hess mention claims about Rudolf Hess being killed by the British SAS. The German articles, however, claim it was the British SIS. Which one is correct? Ini 19:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

SAS is correct [1] but note, Hess had a history of mental illness and suicide attempts and as yet there is little or no hard evidence to support his having been murdered. Wyss 19:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manipulated by extremist adults around them

In late 2005 twins Lamb and Lynx Gaede of Bakersfield, California, who have long performed under the name Prussian Blue, released an album including a song titled Sacrifice, a tribute to Rudolf Hess as a "man of peace." Given that the girls were in their early teens, along with their widely documented white nationalist upbringing, some critics suggested the Gaedes were being manipulated by extremist adults around them.

Manipulated? Children usually follow how their parents raised them. If they sang a tribute to Jesus or Buddha, we wouldn't say manipulated. If they sang a tribute to FDR or JFK or Regan, no one but the most extreme pundits would say manipulated. What justifies it here?--Prosfilaes 17:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If I met any kid publicly singing the praises of any politician even I'd say she'd been manipulated, for starters. As for mainstream religion, manipulation of children along those lines is socially acceptable (some anthropologists might even argue it confers survival benefits). Wyss 17:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Manipulated has such negative connotations. You admit that it'd be manipulation in the case of the religious figures, but you'd say it for the politician. Early teens sing only what their parents agree to, and usually what they approve of. That may well mean slipping a song or two into their selection, including one glorifying anything--or anyone--the parents like.
I'd like to state the exact age, instead of early teens, since one or two years at that age does make a big difference. The Wikipedia article on Prussian Blue (American duo) doesn't state it, though.--Prosfilaes 18:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
They're 13. One wonders what they'll be saying/singing when they're 23. Wyss 18:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final War's Tales of Honour

I don't think a reference from a band not listed on Wikipedia is worth including in the article. I will say, however, that including it in an edit that stripped links and added purely POV text, and then readding it in a message that accused those deleting it of being Zionists was the perfect way to convince me of its value.

On a cross note, Katherine Kurtz's Adept series included a reference to Rudolf Hess in The Lodge of the Lynx; in this fictional universe, his goal in flying to England was to carry a torc of great mystic power away from Hitler's hands. I tend to dislike a huge list of pop culture references, though, so I leave it to someone else to make the decision to add it. --Prosfilaes 04:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, absolutely agree regarding the first paragraph. chowells 14:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Me? A Zionist? rotfl. A "leftist"? Uhm, not, I'm much too spoiled and practical. So much for the insights of our neo-nazi contributors I guess. Anyway pop culture references must come from notable sources. Prussian Blue's notable now, Final War does not seem to be. Wyss 18:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon, do a Final War article. If it survives AfD, come back and try again. Baad 13:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Landing

What's the source for this "Eye-witness accounts of Hess' landing"? Lupo 07:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First sighting of Hess's aircraft?

I've got a local history book about Irvine, Ayrshire that claims that the first credited sighting of Hess's aircraft was made from a Royal Observer Corps watch post on top of the coal bing near the harbour. Irvine is in the Firth of Clyde, can anyone confirm if this is true? - Douglasnicol

[edit] Rudolf Hess's sexuality

I reinserted the information on him because it is from a recognized academic source that conforms to Wikpedia policy. Karl Schalike 19:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not a recognized academic source, it is dismissed by serious historians because the inference it draws in relation to AH is wholly unsupported by the documented record. Wyss 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My reverts

Karl Schalike is attempting to insert wholly unsupported "tabloid" type material into Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, August Kubizek and Rudolf Hess. This includes categorizing AH as homosexual. The sources he cites are not based on verifiable documentation and are not recognized by historians. In one or two cases I have reverted this material as straight vandalism - disinformation.

I am adhering to my scholastic principles and believe I am editing within WP written policy. Some admins will agree with me but others may not. A request on my talk page (User_talk:Wyss) from an admin will be sufficient to stop me from reverting this material as vandalism. I will respect any such request and if it is received, following WP policy I will then take this issue to the RfC level instead. Thanks. Wyss 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm gay and I'm agree : these nazis can't be homosexual : they were too bad and ugly. That's impossible that they were gay because they are criminal.

[edit] Citation request

Could someone please provide a reference for the quotation from Hess and the one from Churchill? Thanks. Camillus (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Churchill, "Reflecting upon the whole of the story...": Winston S. Churchill, The Grand Alliance (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950), p. 55.

Note: The Sovs had full veto powers on any early release or parole for Hess and made things more or less clear they would exercise it until he died in prison. The British and Americans likely would have quietly released Hess in the 1960s if it had been up to them alone.

  • Hess, "My coming to England in this way is, as I realize...": cited as spoken to "John Simon, June 10, 1941. Quoted in: Ilse Hess, Rudolf Hess: Prisoner of Peace, p. 14."

Note: This one's a teensy bit dodgy, while the cite's likely ok this sounds like a slanted propaganda manuscript, but it does sound like the sort of thing Hess was saying at the time. If the date is correct this would be within days either side of when he tried to kill himself by jumping off a balcony at Mytchett Place (Avebury).

Important caution: I found these citations at the Institute for Historical Review website, known mostly for their codswallop Holocaust denial. I've read some of their editorial stuff in the past and for the most part it comes off as poorly written and sloppily thought-out shite but I've yet to run across a citation of theirs that was fabricated. Wyss 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Wyss. I think the article should be edited to show where the quotations come from, as is normal in WP articles. As you provided the citations, could you edit the article to give the references? Camillus (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. Wyss 02:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Doppelganger theory

It fair to say that the 'Hess' double' theory detailed in Hugh Thomas' book has been satisfactorily and totally discredited by now. So much so that Thomas has moved on to pastures new (though just as lucrative) claiming it was a double of Himmler that comitted suicide in custody in 1945. Harryurz 17:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Economical with the actuality

The first line of "Trial and Life Imprisonment" ("Hess was detained by the British for the duration of the war, then was a defendant at the Nuremberg Trials for crimes against peace and given a life sentence.") is over simplified and incorrect as a result. Hess was of course a defendent against all four counts (I-IV) and found guilty of two (I&II). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#The_main_trial . Plus as the war had already started when he was captured he wasn't detained for the duration of it. I've edited it to something more correctly informative. ## I wrote this not looged in so I've now logged in and come back to sign it... PhilipPage 22:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to Operation Barbarossa

<snipped copy of the "Relation to Operation Barbarossa" section from the article>

I'm a newbie, but I'm pretty sure the "Relation to Barbarossa" section is totally non-NPOV and furthermore lacks much of a point. It's plausible to argue, as the first paragraph does, that the very nature of Soviet and Nazi ideologies would bring the USSR and Germany to war, but I don't think there's much of an argument that Stalin, in the forties, was actively trying to 'march west and introduce communism to Germany'. In any case, this isn't relevant to the Rudolf Hess article but to the Operation Barbarossa one. I think a good route to take in the Hess article would be a writeup saying something along the lines of 'Hess's flight to Britain may have taken the USSR by surprise, provoking fears of an alliance between Nazi Germany and Britain against it. This may have delayed the USSR's response to Operation Barbarossa' -- if that's what the writer of this section is implying, as it seems to me. It's important, though, that this should be about the immediate results of his flight -- maybe this should be put under a section on 'Consequences of Hess's flight' or something like that. There are definitely people out there who know vastly more about WWII military history than I do, which is why I don't feel I should edit this myself. --Novazembla 16:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Novazembia. We have Molotov's statement and we have the archives that the Soviets were set to launch their offensive operation first and that Hess's flight spooked them and allowed the Germans to lauch first. Are you disputing that? If so, what is the basis of your authority and what are your references? Moreover, if you will read about the Polish Soviet War you will find that the Soviets were headed West until stopped in that War and their aim was to introduce Communism to the West. Communism has always been an international movement. There were differences in the timetable and emphasis but it has always been a goal. Do you contest that? Is so what is your authority and references? Take Care! --Will(talk) 00:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
While reading the Hess article I - just as Novazembla - found the Barbarossa reference very conspicuous. Will, I think you have the burden of proof totally wrong. You make a disputable claim about a link between Hess and Barbarossa, and you ask Novazembla for references?
In fact, I have a reference to believe your assumptions are ill based... Newsgroup thread
--Citral 21:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see somebody's finally reading the article. I met the initial burden of proof in the article. If anybody wishes to add rebuttal or contra material, of course add it. As long as it is refrenced. Mine was a Molotov comment and material from the Soviet archives. If you have something comparable (better than a newsgroug thread). Let's discuss it. Also explain, whey the Soviets were forward deployed. Take Care! --Will(talk) 03:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it makes no sense that the Soviets were preparing an offensive. Explain then: why was Stalin caught off-guard? Why was Stalin in the middle of purging his officers corps? Why did the soviets mostly have old equipment in '41? Why did the Soviets not mobolize, since they were supposed to launch an offensive? Why did the Soviets construct two lines of fortifications (Stalin and Molotov line)? Why were the Soviets incapable of an offensive campaign into Finland, let alone Germany?
In fact, when the soviets learned about the impending invasion, there was a pre-emptive plan to attack Germany, but only to destroy the built-up on the border, and not in some grand scheme of the conquest of Europe. And the forward deployment of soviet troops can also be explained. The idea was to promptly counterattack in the event of a German attack. You can augue the wisdom of that counteroffensive strategy, but it in no way shows that the Soviets were planning to attack Germany in 1941.
Your source (Suvorov) is discredited by most hostorians, as stated on Wikipedia already: Icebreaker. So in my oppinion the article should state this is a speculative theory...
I also like to adres your statement: "Of course Hitler squandered it by diverting his resources and not taking Moscow. Moreover, by treating the Ukrainians like slaves he created enemies rather than allies." I think this statement is VERY subjective and should be removed. Some counterarguments:
  • It is not proven that the capture of Moscow meant the collapse of the USSR (see Napoleon in Russia).
  • Moscow was heavily entrenched, and its capture would've taken a heavy toll, if captured at all.
  • It was a sound strategy to divert attention to the rich oilfields in the south, where the soviets did not expect it, and the oil fields also ment a continuation of the war effort.
  • The brutal treatment of the population was indeed inhumane, but fit in Hitler's ideology. Also a good treatment of the population would probably have slowed the german advance, as they couldn't have exploited the population, would've had to share infrastructure with the civilians, etc.
--Citral 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course that's the whole point, Hess's flight to Britian spooked the Soviets from going first! A hundred and fifty years later after Napolean Moscow had become the rail and nerve center of the Soviet Union! Its capture would have made quite a difference. Find some dissenting authority and put it their footnoted views. Many historians and commentators including General von Manstein think that von Paulus's 6th Army at Stalingrad should have been merely a blocking force for the Caucus Group while it seized the Baku oil fields. They say that the efforts at Stallingrad was futile a priori and not just in hindsight. But Richard Sorge, the double agent in japan that gave Stalin the date for Barbarossa and pearl harbor (that enabled him to shift 40 Siberian divisions to defend Moscow) had informed Stalin that japan had agreed to enter the War against the Soviet Union once any city on the Volga had been captured and the Iranian supply link had been severed. Take Care! --Will(talk) 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Will, why do you keep throwing in more speculative theories which are irrelevant to the discussion? I respect whatever oppinions you may have, but let's get back to the essence of our dispute.
  • Your source (Suvorov) has already been discredited, and that alone should already be enough to add a large notion of scepticism in the article;
  • I posed you questions above, which are also arguments against Suvorov's theorem. You did not refute those;
  • My counterarguments about Hitler's decission not to drive for Moscow in '42, were not meant to convince you, but to show you that your statement in the article was very subjective... And I think I proved that point.
I have a proposal: I want to let your section of Barbarossa remain largely untouched, while adding a notion of scepticism. I also want to remove the end comment "Of course Hitler ... than allies.".
I believe this is a good compromise! --Citral 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

listen here Citral, be civil. you were the one that mentioned Moscow and the oil fields and I mentioned von Manstein and Richard Sorge for your edification and entertainment not to get trounced. Sorge is no speculation. He was for real. With advance warning of pearl harbor, Stalin was able to shift 40 Siberian divisions in November of 1941 and blunt Operation Typhoon and save Moscow. Any World War II buff worth his salt ought to know stuff like this. Read the Richard Sorge article. After that Moscow was too well defended and they went for less defended territories. Put in whatever contra view that you want as long as it resourced and footnoted or cited. That is what Wikipedia is about. Say "this critic xxxx writing in yyyy says surov is "full of it zzzzz" Take Care! --Will(talk) 03:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Took out all the refs to Moscow and Hitler. Article is not based on Suvorov but on archive research by Mikhail Ivanovich Meltyukhov. Citations to another WP article is not good. So I have to port over the footnotes from the other article, Stalin's Missed Chance. I"ll do that when I get the chance. Take Care! --Will(talk) 03:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there -- I apologize for my absence from the discussion I started. Honestly, I think this historical battle belongs under Operation Barbarossa and not Rudolf Hess. What's relevant in the article is the effects of Hess's flight to Suvorov's theory, and I think that's where the focus should be. Suvorov or Meltyukhov's opinions on the motivations of Stalin are important to the Operation Barbarossa writeup, but have little to do with Hess.
The "Relation to Operation Barbarossa" section is still messy; the huge quotes should be summarized. If it's going to be a section about Suvorov's theory, its focus should be "Why does Suvorov think Hess flew to Britain?" and say something like "According to Russian historian Viktor Suvorov, who in his book Icebreaker stated that Stalin started WWII as part of a ploy to install communism in Western Europe, Hess's flight to Germany stirred fears among the Soviet leadership of an Anglo-German reconciliation and delayed a planned invasion of Germany." (That sentence is a mess, and of course you can add whatever you like to make it more accurate.) It should then have links to a further explanation of Suvorov's theory.
And because you asked, Will, I think the statement that the Soviets were driven by a desire to militarily impose communism in Western Europe in the forties is simply wrong. The following sentence cites the Soviet-Polish war as evidence -- this would be fine evidence if we were talking about the USSR under Lenin in the early twenties, but we're talking about the USSR under Stalin in the early forties. I certainly don't contest that internationalism is an important part of traditional communist ideology, but Stalin was hardly a purist, and one of the main modifications Stalin made to traditional Marxism was the development of "socialism in one country". It may seem absurd to you -- as it did to Trotsky -- but take it up with Stalin, not me. Although the USSR called itself socialist during the twenties as well as the forties, the ideology it ran on had undergone some radical changes. Novazembla 07:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Novaaembla. Again you miss the point. Hess's flight determined who got to go FIRST. The point between Trotskyism and Stalinism is small potatoes. The colossi had incompatible ideologies and were headed for an inevitable showdown. Suv. said the Soviets were going for a pre-emptive strike whereas Melt. said it was planned as a pure offensive operation. It has everying to do with Hess's importance. It converts an unexplained looney flight to Scoltand to a pivotal event in the history of the world. Take Care! --Will(talk) 08:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hess' flight is not 'unexplained'. But aside from that, I can see a good point in summarizing the parts in relation to operation barbarossa which don't directly deal with Hess. [Which indeed also means removing my counterarguments to the theories.] A lot can be said in favor and against Suvorov's and Meltyukhov's theories, but I agree with Novazembla that the Hess article is not the place to do so. We could cut things down to "... in this and that theory (see <link>), Hess flight plays a major role in delaying a possible soviet offensive ...". And then keep the discussion about those theories out of the Hess article... However a NPOV dictates the explicit mention that the only link those theories have to Hess (and hence what is relevant in the Hess article) is the recollection of Molotov, some 40 years later in which speaks in terms of "it seems to me that"... --Citral 14:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't miss the point, I'm agreeing with you that Suvorov's theory endows Hess's looney flight with historical importance, and as such is important in an article on Hess. But speculations about Stalin and the nature of communism or bits about Hannibal from the annals of military history aren't. Like I said -- it's enough to mention the importance of his flight to this particular theory. If that theory says that Hess's flight determined who started the war, then that's what should be said, then link to maybe the Operation Barbarossa or the Icebreaker writeup or whatever you think for information on the theory and the situation in the USSR at that time. Right now, the Relation to Operation Barbarossa section is completely unclear and the important parts about Hess are totally buried. Novazembla 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The other explanation paints him as a quixotic lunatic instead of a man that rose to be second to Hitler. I"ll work on a summary over the weekend. Take Care! --Will(talk) 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anybody know how to make a vandallism report on the pie throwing clown "68.164.46.54 " Take Care! --Will(talk)13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide attempts

From the article: "Hess had attempted suicide at least twice before, in 1941 at Mytchett Place by flinging himself from a balcony, and in 1977 by cutting his wrists with a table knife. He was buried in Wunsiedel, and Spandau was subsequently demolished to prevent its becoming a shrine."

However, Albert Speer writes, 1959-11-27, in his diary from Spandau (translated from my copy in Swedish): "This morning I managed to see Hess. He was laying on the bed with a thick bandage around his wrist. When I came he looked up tiredly with a wax-yellow face. Yet, he seemed like a child who had managed a surprise. Almost excited he began to tell: 'When you were in the garden yesterday and there was no guard nearby I broke my glasses quickly and cut an artery with a shard. For three hours no one noticed anything', he continued almost happily, 'I lay in the bed and was to bleed to death and it was quite nice. Then I would forever be rid of my pains. I had already become all feeble and comfortable. But then I suddenly heard a noice that seemed to come from far away, it was this disastrous man, the soviet supreme doctor on his round. He saw me lay here and immediately sew together the cut'"

I figured someone might have an opinion on this, hence why I didn't add it immediately. Feel free to do so yourselves if there are no objections from anyone. --Ojan 16:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumb or no thumb?

I just added a thumb for Rudolf Hess's picture, I thought it might be good to have some consistency because the Hermann Goring article also has a thumb - I didn't realise K-UNIT had taken away the thumb. So should the thumb be there or not? Typhoonchaser 02:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbarossa

This whole section is an appalling mess, a collection of half-baked arguments and ill-thoughout assumptions. It is speculative in the extreme and simply deserves no place in an article on the life of Rudolph Hess. Anyone who knows anything about military planning and logistics will understand that complex timetables are not to to be altered by sudden small events. The suggestion that Hess' flight to Scotland somehow stopped a Soviet invasion of western Europe totters on the verge of intellectual lunacy. White Guard 23:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

White G, you started a new thread, instead of continuing the discussion. You find it odd that "sudden small events" can alter or delay "complex timetables." Tell that to those pesky chaotic butterlies to Brazil that start tornadoes in Kansas. It is called the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory. As fasr as speculation, the theory is supported by Molotov's comments and the Soviet archives. Best Wishes. Will314159 01:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Archives are full of false leads, and I would trust the word of Satan before that of Molotov. True intellect demands the ability to sift the truth from falsehood, or to understand what is believable and relevant and what is not. This section is meretricious, pesudo-scholarly, and atrociously phrased nonsense-butterflies or not. It belongs in the pages of crank history-because that is precisely what it is. White Guard 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


I used the word "meretricious" in a court document I filed one time. I thought it just meant adulterous behaviour. Everybody got mad at me. It turned out it meant whorish and promiscous. I had to apologize. I wonder if White Guard knows what all those words he uses so handily mean. Cheers. Will314159 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that I would never use a word 'so handily', or in any other fashion, without understanding its meaning, as you seem to have done on a past occasion. I hope the consequences were not too serious. It can indeed mean 'pertaining to prostitutes', though I believe the use in this context is archaic. My meaning was in the mainstream sense of 'superficially attractive' or 'misleadingly plausible', both relevant and applicable to the point made above. However, I should say that I am British and have been brought up in the British use of the English language. I assume the same contemporary meaning is to be found in American dictionaries, though I am not sure. Are you American? Why not have a look? White Guard 02:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see White Guard, there is a secondary meaning to "meretricious." But i had used the word "relationship" after it so I was barred from claiming that one. Thanks for reminding me about the "British" stuff, I have to dash off an email to my English nephew, the 22nd is his b'day. I've pared down the article a little bit. Best Wishes. Will314159 07:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

White Guard is using the word "meretricious" with its standard modern usage - superficially attractive. I've never heard anyone use it to refer to a prostitute ("That woman on the street corner looks a bit meretricious to me"). Anyway, ther fact is that this whole section has almost nothing to do with Hess, nor is any reason given why Hess's flight would have stopped these supposed Russian plans. Analogies with butterfulies and hurricanes are not just metetricious, they are nonsensical. The point is that the effect of the butterfly cannot be measured, but when added tio a vast number of other variables may be one determinent of a storm. The argument - or rather the unargued assertion - here is that Hess's flight can be specifically identified as the cause of Stalin's alleged decision to stand down. This would require some rational explanation. We are not talking about tiny events having unforseen knock-on effects. Even if this argumernt were notable it would not require an entire section unless it were full of specific detail about the role of Hess's flight. But as it is Hess is barely mentioned. Paul B 09:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What can I add, other than I agree with everything you have written: history does not turn on the head of a pin. I would have taken this nonsense out-because it is complete nonsense-for the reasons I gave at the outset of this discussion, but I suspected that my edits would be subject to counter-attack by the same cranks who inserted this in the first place. Can you suggest a way forward? White Guard 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"cranks" hardly assuming good faith. The way meritrious is used is, an adjective which it is, in front of a noun as in meretricious behavior. Go to Merriam Webster onlline Dictionary Paul and you will see what the primary definitian is and what the secondary one.MW on meretriciousBest Wishes Will314159 01:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I caused any offence. I have a direct way of expressing myself when confronted by what I consider to be nonsense. I have also become only too well aware that there are 'cranks' in Wikipedia, though from your tone I feel sure you are not among them. White Guard 01:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul. "The argument - or rather the unargued assertion - here is that Hess's flight can be specifically identified as the cause of Stalin's alleged decision to stand down." Read the article. There is Molotov's statement and research in the archives. You also miss the argument about the butterfly. It is to demonstrate that in some modeling, the system is very sensitive to initial conditions. That even one butterfly flap in Brazil can lead to a possible tornado in Kansas. The argument is that possibly Hess's flight was such a juncture in History. Speculative, no doubt. But very, very interesting and appropriate in an article about Hess. Ihave pruned the article to meet some objections raised. Didn't even get "that's a good start." Best Wishes Will314159 01:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)EDIT after all the topic header is SPECULATION on Hess's flight. It can still be pruned down further. I was the original author, and contrary to all my training (admit noting, deny everything) I admit I embellished and spun it out, but I have done further editing. Best Wishes Will314159 05:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] grammatical mistakes

i am finding a lot of grammatical errors in this article ... there is good stuff here but it doesnt read so well ... perhaps it was written in part by non-native english speakers? anyway, i will make some edits and am happy to discuss them here if necessary Mujinga 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is a good illustration of the future of the English language. It is an offer from a non-native English speaker, written in non-native English, to proofread and polish an article written by a mixture of non-native English speakers and native English speakers - each with a different voice and tone - on the English-language version of Wikipedia. I have read the article and it is of a tolerable standard. The most turgid part is the lengthy section about Russia's plan to invade Germany, which I will not touch because it would be like dipping my hands into acid. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I would be inclined to agree with Mr. A Pomeroy, the article, in my humble opinion is indeed a tolerable and easy to read, although with respect to the Russians plans to invade Germany, the disclaimer that "This section may stray from the article's topic", would appear to provide sufficient warning to those uninterested in the subject. -Iain Moody 21:27, 26 October 2006 (GMT+1)

[edit] The Suvorov Thesis-or Barbarrossa part II.

I've now had a chance to look into this question a little more deeply, and am now in a position to report what I have found.

On 5 May 1941 Stalin and Zhadanov attended an assembly of army officers in the Great Kremlin Palace. Stalin gave a speech, at he conclusion of which he posed a general question about the German army, asking if it was unbeatable. There are no invincible armies in the world, Stalin continued, and if "Molotov...can delay the start of the war for two or three months, this'll be our good fortune." At the conclusion of the ensuing dinner he proposed a toast "Long live the dynamic offensive poloicy of the Soviet State!"

That's it. But on the basis of this-and other very thin evidence-Victor Suvorov publised a paper in June 1985, arguing that Stalin was about to attack Hitler because he ordered a partial mobilisation and because Zukhov produced a plan for offensive depoloyments. This whole thesis has been completely discredited. The actual view of the General Staff was that it would be necessary for the Red Army to withdraw deeper into Soviet territory. General Vasilevsky suggested that airfields and infrastructure be moved as far east as the Volga. Offensive war was only ever raised in broad ideological terms, as a morale booster.

There is another point to consider in this regard. General officers will always work on offensive possibilities, usually for educational and illustrative purposes; this does not imply an intention to act. Who knows what one might find if a state is torn up by the roots, and its secret archives opened up to general scrutiny? I dare say there is even a US 'plan' somewhere, detailing dispositions and resources needed for offensive operations against Canada and Mexico!

Now what about Hess? Stalin learned of his 'mission' on 10 May. It did not lead him to 'cancel' non-existant invasion plans. Instead he gave permission to his generals on 12 May to strengthen the western borders, and allowed the call-up of another 500,000 reservists; but he still remained terrified of antagonising Hitler. He even refused to believe that Hitler knew of the reconnaissance flights over Soviet air-space, and on 24 May stopped all further defensive preparations.

The speculation about Hess and Soviet military plans in this page are thus nonsensical in every conceivable sense. More than that, they have no bearing whatsoever on the life of Rudolph Hess, and thus needs to be removed. It is, as I have said, crank history; I am sorry if this view offends; but it is, after all, no more than the simple truth. If anyone wishes to know how detailed war preparations work in practice I suggest that they look German military logistics for the war against France in 1914. There came a point of no return, beyond which even the Kaiser could not call a halt. White Guard 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


WG- you are right about one thing. There was a plan for US military action against Canada. But as far as your research, see WP:OR. Also hou cite no sources. You seem to have a habit of saying " this and this is non-sense, delete it." I"ve seen it in two articles now. As I said before, the heading is Speculation about Hess's flight. It may be non-sense specualtion to you, but you have to agree it is speculation and it notable speculation. Nevertheless thnks for the info, it was a good read. Take Care! Will314159 10:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

SO WG, if you have an authority for your claim why don't you make an edit thhat "Molotov's claim is challenged by so and so who says that "Stalin learned of his 'mission' on 10 May. It did not lead him to 'cancel' non-existant invasion plans. Instead he gave permission to his generals on 12 May to strengthen the western borders, and allowed the call-up of another 500,000 reservists; but he still remained terrified of antagonising Hitler. He even refused to believe that Hitler knew of the reconnaissance flights over Soviet air-space, and on 24 May stopped all further defensive preparations." [citation needed]Best Wishes Will314159 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not original research. Most of the points I have made above are to be found in Simon Sebag Montefiore's Stalin-the Court of the Red Tsar. I will admit that, as a historian, I have an intense prejudice against all 'conspiracy theory'; and, as I have already said, history does not turn on the head of a pin. The Suvorov thesis was rapidly dismissed in the land of its origin-Molotov notwithstanding. It's a pity to see it reproduced here, where it has no bearing or relevance whatsoever on the life of Rudolf Hess. White Guard 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


WG, then make that edit and stick Montefiore as the source where it says citation needed, then everybody will know your conterbalancing opinion in the body of the article as well as the talk page. Wiskis for Editors and Beers for the Horses. Will314159 12:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure history can turn on the head of a pin. Stolen plans, cracked codes, Assasinated leaders. Richard Sorge disclosing to Stalin the December date of Pearl Harbor. Secure in the knowledge that Japan would be pre-occuptied, Stalin in Nov 41 puts 40 Siberian divisions on the railroad and blunts the German advance on the Kremllin when they were within sight of the spires. By the way, Sorge had also give Stalin the date of Barbarossa, some say that Stalin refused to believe Hitler would invade first. He believed Sorge after that event. Wiskis for Editors and Beers for the Horses. Will314159 12:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Basing strategic decisions on reliable intelligence is something quite different. Stalin acted on Sorge's reports in December because he had learned the cost of ignoring them in June. It was a calculated gamble, something quite different from calling off an entire offensive depolyment on the basis of a sudden and unexpected development. Would you object if I edited the whole Suvorov section out? You can, if you wish, create a separate page for this; but it simply has no place in a biography of Hess. White Guard 00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

YES I OBJECT, What part of SPECULATION don't you understand White Guard. Yes it's specualtive. Specualtive means it's not provable but it is speculation. Anyway my write up of the speculation is not based on Suv but on Meltyukhov, Like I said If you feel that strongly about it, why don't you make the suggested counterbalancing edit. Wikis for the Editors and Beers for the Horses. Will314159 03:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just finished reading the two volumes of Ian Kershaw's Hitler, and a 'counterbalancing' edit based on that book, would mean the removal of this section for it is nonsense. However, a compromise would be to largely trim the speculative section in this article, and put up a link to the Meltyukhov article for further reading. I agree with WG that most of the text in this section doesn't belong in an article about Rudolf Hess. Is this an acceptable agreement for you Will? We should work towards a solution... --Citral 13:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply not getting through to you, am I? It has no place in a life of Rudolph Hess. Anyway, I've done with the matter. You can have this and any other half-baked nonsense you wish. White Guard 05:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT. "speculate ..Main Entry: spec·u·late .. Etymology: Latin speculatus, past participle of speculari to spy out, examine, from specula lookout post, from specere to look, look at -- more at SPY ..1 a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : REFLECT b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively.[2]Best Wishes Will314159 19:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You have an unfortunate way of expressing yourself. The above contribution is quite fatuous. White Guard 23:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)