Was Rudolf Hess Deserving of Mercy after World War II?

Rudolf Hess, a controversial figure in the aftermath of World War II, remains one of the most discussed individuals of that era. His actions and alleged involvement in the war have sparked debates about the extenuating circumstances surrounding his case. Did Hess deserve the mercy he sought, or was he truly culpable for his role in the atrocities committed during the war?

The Psychological State of Rudolf Hess

Hess is perceived to have had some severe psychological conditions, including delusional thinking and paranoia. These psychological symptoms significantly influenced his decision-making and perception of the world around him. This mental state played a crucial role in shaping his actions during and after the war.

Legal Defenses and Testimonies

The defense for Rudolf Hess during the Nuremberg Trials was robust and multifaceted. His legal counsel, Dr. Alfred Seidl, presented a compelling case spanning the dates of March 22–26. Seidl argued that while Hess accepted responsibility for the many decrees he signed, these actions were part of the internal sovereignty of Germany and thus not relevant to war crimes trials. This legal defense was aimed at diminishing the guilt attributed to Hess's actions.

Ernst Wilhelm Bohle, the former head of the NSDAP/AO, testified on behalf of Hess. Refuting allegations of espionage and warlike activities, Bohle stated that any such actions were unauthorized and beyond his knowledge. This testimony was crucial in presenting a defense against the charges of conspiracy and espionage that influenced many aspects of the trial.

Dr. Seidl also called two witnesses: Karl Strislin, a former mayor of Stuttgart, and Hess's brother Alfred. Both witnesses refuted accusations that the NSDAP/AO had been involved in spying activities. The defense attempted to establish that Hess's involvement was limited to his role as an individual following orders rather than as a key figure in orchestrating warlike activities.

Court's Ruling and Sentencing

The court deliberated for nearly two months before reaching a decision on September 30, 1946. The defendants were sentenced the following day, October 1, 1946. Rudolf Hess was found guilty on two charges: 'Crimes against peace' and 'conspiracy with other German leaders to commit crimes.' He was acquitted of three charges of 'War crimes' and 'crimes against humanity,' including a lesser sentence of life in prison.

On July 18, 1947, Hess was transported to the Allied military prison in Spandau, Berlin. The Soviet member of the tribunal, Major-General Iona Nikitchenko, dissented from Hess's sentence, arguing in a document that the death penalty would have been more appropriate. This dissent underscores the complexity and subjectivity of the trial's verdicts.

Mental Health and Post-Trial Behavior

After the trial, Hess's mental state deteriorated significantly. He grew increasingly detached from his family and the outside world, declining their visits and refusing to read newspapers. This detachment was a stark contrast to his active role during the war and the trial, indicating the profound psychological impact the trials had on him.

Rudolf Hess's final statement to the tribunal on August 31, 1946, was delivered in his defense. This statement, though lengthy, did not sway the court's ruling in his case. The tribunal's decision to sentence Hess to life imprisonment was a reflection of the complex legal and psychological issues at play in the aftermath of the war.

Rudolf Hess died in prison on August 17, 1987, at the age of 93. His death brought the chapter of his life to a close, while questions about his culpability and mental state remained an enduring part of the historical narrative of World War II.

Understanding the psychological and legal complexities surrounding Rudolf Hess's case is crucial for grasping the broader implications of war and its impact on justice and human behavior. The trial of Rudolf Hess serves as a reminder of the intricate layers of guilt, responsibility, and mental health that often complicate historical cases of this magnitude.