Rudolf Hess

Daniel Hindes (February 25th, 2004):
Peter,
Earlier you stated that Rudolf Hess is an example of a prominent Nazi who was simultaneously a follower of Steiner. I was hoping you could elaborate on this. I don't find it mentioned in most histories of the era. Perhaps you could share the evidence that you have uncovered that would support this contention.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 26th, 2004):
Sure. The most abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources: Arfst Wagner's seminal five-volume collection Dokumente und Briefe zur Geschichte der Anthroposophischen Bewegung und Gesellschaft in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, and Uwe Werner's book Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. Both Wagner and Werner (the latter more strenuously than the former) argue that the evidence they present does not indicate any personal sympathy for anthroposophy on Hess's part, and Wagner reprints a letter from Hess's wife saying that Hess had no interest in anthroposophy. I think some their interpretations of the documentary material are erroneous, and I think the letter from Ilse Hess is of dubious value as evidence. In any case, you will find a lot of material there on Hess's role in protecting anthroposophists and their projects during the Third Reich.
As for non-anthroposophist literature, James Webb writes that "by his own admission" Hess "was sympathetic to Steiner's doctrines." Webb reports that Hess told the British doctor who examined him after he flew to Scotland "that he had for years been interested in Steiner's anthroposophy." (Webb, The Occult Establishment p. 308) In another work Webb writes that “Rudolf Hess was a devotee of Rudolf Steiner” (Webb, The Harmonious Circle p. 186). Various observers report that Hess structured his diet and his health care around anthroposophist beliefs (see Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, Hess: A Biography pp. 64-66; Albert Speer, Errinerungen pp. 133-134; Wulf Schwarzwäller, Rudolf Hess pp. 112-115). Walter Schellenberg relays a report from the German intelligence services describing Hess as a “silent patron and follower of the anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner.” (Schellenberg, Memoiren p. 160) Anna Bramwell writes that “Hess was a follower of Rudolf Steiner” (Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century p. 197). There are several other references of this sort in the literature.

Daniel Hindes (February 26th, 2004):
Peter, you state that "...abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources..." I am hoping you can be more specific, because I haven't been able to find it.
I understand that a number of people have written some variant of "Rudolf Hess was a devotee of Rudolf Steiner." I want to know what they base this opinion on. For example, where did Hess get the information that he used to formulate his diet? Did he read Steiner, or get it from a magazine article? Diet is not exactly something Steiner talked a lot about, and what little there is is mostly buried in the lectures to the workers of the first Goetheanum. If Hess really read this deeply into Steiner's works, I would tend to think there would be more evidence than has yet been presented. On the other hand, if he formed his views on information from a friend of a friend, then the connection to Steiner is rather tenuous.
Peter Staudenmaier:
"Various observers report that Hess structured his diet and his health care around anthroposophist beliefs (see Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, Hess: A Biography pp. 64-66; ..."
Daniel:
Rudolf Steiner's name is not mentioned at all in this biography. Nor does the word "anthroposophy" appear in the pages you have cited. The pages discuss the fact that Hess was particular about his diet, and like Hitler was a vegetarian, teetotaler and non-smoker. The closest even a remote mention of anthroposophy is the statement by Speer cited on page 65 that "Hess argued stubbornly trying to explain to Hitler that his [vegetarian] food should contain certain biologically dynamic components." This could support the well known fact that Hess was interested in the anthroposophical version of organic farming. It does not, to my mind, establish that Hess ever read a word of Steiner. Hess' surrounding himself with "clairvoyants and astrologers" is mentioned, as well has his interest in "horoscopes and the semi-occult" and his personal fortune-teller.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Albert Speer, Errinerungen pp. 133-134;
Daniel:
Is probably the source of the quote in Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel.
Peter Staudenmaier:
"Anna Bramwell writes that “Hess was a follower of Rudolf Steiner” (Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century p. 197)."
Daniel:
I've checked this reference too. Bramwell makes her statement without any citations whatsoever, so the reader really has no clue how she came to this conclusion.
Peter Staudenmaier:
"There are several other references of this sort in the literature."
Daniel:
If they are all of similar quality, they don't really establish much.
To me, to be a "follower of Steiner" requires an actual study of Steiner's works. It is evidence of this that I am looking for. Repeated references to the "fact" that Steiner was a "follower of Steiner" do not establish anything. Just because something is repeated, even frequently, does not make it true.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 26th, 2004):
You haven't? Werner's book has an index. It contains 44 references to Hess. There are whole sections with titles like "Hess' erneuter Einsatz für die biologisch-dynamische Wirtschaftsweise." Are you saying that you disagree that Hess played a major role in protecting anthroposophists and their projects during the Third Reich?

Daniel Hindes (February 26th, 2004):
Well, I found those. I'm just curious which ones you think have been misinterpreted by Werner, as Werner doesn't see any of them as painting Hess an Anthroposophist. Neither do I really see any of them as evidence that Hess was actually a follower of Steiner. As I stated earlier, I consider reading Steiner a requirement for meeting the definition of a follower or devotee or acolyte or anthroposophist. Hess used his position as Hitler's Deputy to defend quite a few people besides anthroposophists; I don't see in this fact any evidence of a personal devotion to Rudolf Steiner. Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel's biography shows that Hess ran after just about every form of alternative health around at the time, and as such he was bound to run into anthroposophists in the medical field eventually. Does this make him a follower of Steiner?
And let's be clear, I am trying to establish whether Hess was a "follower of Steiner" or an anthroposophist, not whether his office protected biodynamic farmers after anthroposophy was outlawed.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 26th, 2004):
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
"Peter, you state that "...abundant evidence is contained in two anthroposophist sources..." I am hoping you can be more specific, because I haven't been able to find it."
Peter Staudenmaier:
You haven't? Werner's book has an index. It contains 44 references to Hess. There are whole sections with titles like "Hess' erneuter Einsatz für die biologisch-dynamische Wirtschaftsweise." Are you saying that you disagree that Hess played a major role in protecting anthroposophists and their projects during the Third Reich?
Daniel:
"For example, where did Hess get the information that he used to formulate his diet? Did he read Steiner, or get it from a magazine article?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't know. How might one find out something like that? The sources I cited say that he was fastidious about keeping a biodynamic diet.
[I must point out that, for a historian, if you don't know how your sources know something, you don't know how accurate they are. And using unreliable sources is no way for a historian to proceed.]
Daniel:
"On the other hand, if he formed his views on information from a friend of a friend, then the connection to Steiner is rather tenuous."
Peter Staudenmaier:
I can't entirely agree with that understanding of "tenuous". We aren't looking for instances of personal influence, are we? I think we're looking for the influence of specific ideas, practices, and so forth, which are very frequently conveyed third-hand, or via magazine articles, and so forth.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 26th, 2004):
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
"This could support the well known fact that Hess was interested in the anthroposophical version of organic farming. It does not, to my mind, establish that Hess ever read a word of Steiner."
Peter Staudenmaier:
We don't know what Hess read. We do know some of what Hess did.
Daniel:
"If they are all of similar quality, they don't really establish much."
Peter Staudenmaier:
What was it you were looking to have established?
Daniel:
"To me, to be a "follower of Steiner" requires an actual study of Steiner's works."
Peter Staudenmaier:
You mean his written works? So there are no followers of Jesus? I think this is an untenable approach to the issue. Following anthroposophical tenets in one's personal life is evidence of anthroposophical beliefs.
Daniel:
"I'm just curious which ones you think have been misinterpreted by Werner, as Werner doesn't see any of them as painting Hess an Anthroposophist."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Here's an example. Werner basically says that Hess had no interest in or sympathy for anthroposophy or Steiner, that he was merely protecting and promoting biodynamics as an independent entity. But Werner also reproduces a 1937 memo from Lotar Eickhoff (Hess’s aide, who joined the Anthroposophical Society after the war) which explicitly states Hess’s conviction that biodynamic farming cannot be separated from its anthroposophist foundations: “The Deputy of the Führer [i.e. Hess] is of the opinion that if one wants to preserve one aspect — like biodynamic agriculture — one cannot in any way separate it from its scientific basis and its scientific reinforcements, that is, from the work set down in Rudolf Steiner’s books and the Rudolf Steiner schools.” (pp. 214-215) I think this memo speaks directly against Werner's conclusion.
Daniel:
"Neither do I really see any of them as evidence that Hess was actually a follower of Steiner. As I stated earlier, I consider reading Steiner a requirement for meeting the definition of a follower or devotee or acolyte or anthroposophist."
Peter Staudenmaier:
I suppose that depends on how strictly we interpret each of those terms. But if we're looking to trace the lineage of particular beliefs and practices, then I think what you say above is mistaken in principle, not simply in this case. Evidence of direct reading is too restrictive a criterion for ideological influence in general, especially with historical figures.
Daniel:
"Hess used his position as Hitler's Deputy to defend quite a few people besides anthroposophists; I don't see in this fact any evidence of a personal devotion to Rudolf Steiner."
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't think that devotion to Steiner as a person is an issue here, if that's what you mean.
Daniel:
"Does this make him a follower of Steiner?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
There is no shortage of people today who combine anthroposophical beliefs with any number of other theories, from astrology to homeopathy. Many of these people can accurately be described as followers of Steiner, in my view.
Daniel:
"And let's be clear, I am trying to establish whether Hess was a "follower of Steiner" or an anthroposophist, not whether his office protected biodynamic farmers after anthroposophy was outlawed."
Peter Staudenmaier:
That's fine, but the second part is important to the kind of history that I do. Some anthroposophists have taken the line that Hess helped out more or less anybody who came across his path, so what's the big deal, but I think this misses the point. Hess was fairly selective about the groups and individuals that he favored, and he did not shy away from going to bat for them in the face of sometimes intense opposition from other Nazi leaders. His support for Walter Gross, the head of the Office of Racial Policy, is one example, and I think his interventions on behalf of Waldorf and biodynamics is another. In fact I think that the divided attitudes toward anthroposophy within the higher echelons of the party make a very interesting case study in the dynamics of Nazi policy and its implementation (one of the few topics on which I largely agree with Werner). Making sense of this material requires us to take seriously the levels of expressed interest in the variety of anthroposophical projects in Germany at the time, as well as exploring some of the reasons for this interest.

Detlef Hardorp (February 27th, 2004):
OK folks, let's cede to PS: Hess was an anthroposophist, as are all parents at Waldorf schools. The former liked biodynamic vegetables, the latter like Waldorf Education. And as is Peter Staudenmaier. As to the Waldorf parents: I have a memo of a former Waldorf school secretary who cites a former Waldorf parent as saying that Waldorf Education cannot be separated from its roots. As to PS:
We jump to the year 2079. The "Anthroposophy-Tomorrow" list is now called "Anthroposophy-Yesterday" (as tomorrow has come and gone). The most popular thread in the discussion: Was the late Peter Staudenmaier an anthroposophist? Of course he was, he was the first to show them the light! He saw things for what they really were. Not embellished by lofty imaginations. And he had read tons of Steiner. Very critically, of course. But isn't that what Steiner wanted of anthroposophists? A critical appraisal of what he said? Well, he got it! In fact, anthroposophy really began to take off in a genuine way through the courage of Peter Staudenmaier's independent inquiry. By asking precise questions as to what people meant when they used anthroposophical jargon, it began to become ever more apparent that most of the time, there was nothing behind the words except empty visions of an "overworld" that doesn't, in fact, really exist. That began the paradigm shift in anthroposophical thinking. Anthroposophy and Steiner were deflated for what they really were. That's how anthroposophy came and went.
It all reminds me a bit of my most favourite stories: the Narnia chronicles by C.S. Lewis. An excerpt from chapter 12 of "The silver chair": Jill, Scrubb and Puddleglum have just released Prince Rilian from a spell cast by the which of the underworld, who unexpectedly enters the chamber and a conversation ensues. [The subsequent quotation of CS Lewis has been removed for brevity.]

Peter Staudenmaier (February 26th, 2004):
Lots of people like biodynamic vegetables. Relatively few people are so committed to maintaining a strict biodynamic diet that they do so at the risk of offending their boss, who happens to be an unpredictable dictator known for having subordinates murdered when they strike him as less than loyal. Rudolf Hess did exactly that with his boss, Hitler. If you think this indicates a merely casual interest in anthroposophical practices, may I suggest you reconsider?
[Hess was hardly an ultra-rational man, as his flight to Britan suggests. Fanaticism for biodynamic vegetables does not translate to fanatacism towards the man who gave instructions on how they are to be grown.]
I think that the question of how narrowly to construe terms like "anthroposophist" and "follower of Steiner" is a very interesting one, but you don't seem to have much interest in it.
[Why does Peter Staudenmaier claim Detlef shows now interest in it? Detlef just brought the question up in the post Peter is right not replying to!]
Oddly, you have never challenged my description of Otto Schily as an anthroposophist, even though Schily has done virtually nothing as Interior Minister for Waldorf schools or biodynamic farmers, in stark contrast to Hess's well documented role in the Third Reich.
[What's the logic here? There are many absurdities of Peter Staudenmaier's that have yet to be objected to.]
It is certainly worth arguing over my characterization of Schily (after all, he says publically that he is not an anthroposophist, and according to stricter definitions of the term I'd even agree), but if you don't object in his case, how come you get all hot and bothered over Hess?
[The current discussion is about Hess. That is why Hess is being discussed. The discussion is not yet about all the other Nazi's that Peter Staudenmaier tries to paint as Nazi's. That is why they have not been brought up yet.]

Detlef Hardorp (February 27th, 2004):
I wrote: "OK folks, let's cede to PS: Hess was an anthroposophist, as are all parents at Waldorf schools. The former liked biodynamic vegetables, the latter like Waldorf Education."
PS wrote: "Lots of people like biodynamic vegetables. Relatively few people are so committed to maintaining a strict biodynamic diet that they do so at the risk of offending their boss, who happens to be an unpredictable dictator known for having subordinates murdered when they strike him as less than loyal. Rudolf Hess did exactly that with his boss, Hitler. If you think this indicates a merely casual interest in anthroposophical practices, may I suggest you reconsider?
I reconsider and cede again. Hess was an anthroposophist, as are all parents at Waldorf schools. The former liked biodynamic vegetables so much that he ate them exclusively, the latter like Waldorf Education so much that they even send their children to Waldorf schools.
And of course Otto Schily is an anthroposophist, even though he says publically that he is not an anthroposophist (according to PS). After all, his brother went to a Waldorf school and he uses Weleda soap. Unlike with Hess, I have been told by a reliable source that he even attempted reading Steiner! But then that was less of an achievement, since no dictator was likely to kill him for it. Hess might have tried as well (deep down in a dungeon in the dark so Hitler's secret police wouldn't notice). Who knows? And what we don't know for sure - and there is a lot of that - just might have happened. Who on this list can prove the contrary?
PS wrote: "I think that the question of how narrowly to construe terms like "anthroposophist" and "follower of Steiner" is a very interesting one, but you don't seem to have much interest in it."
Quite to the contrary, Mr. Staudenmaier! I am very interested. So tell us: what is your definition of
a. an "anthroposophist" and
b. a "follower of Steiner"?
Are the two identical? Are all followers of Steiner anthroposophists? Are all anthroposophists followers of Steiner? What would be the broadest possible definition of the two terms, what would be the narrowest possible definition? Which definitions do you use when?

Daniel Hindes (February 29th, 2004):
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
"Hess was fairly selective about the groups and individuals that he favored, and he did not shy away from going to bat for them in the face of sometimes intense opposition from other Nazi leaders. His support for Walter Gross, the head of the Office of Racial Policy, is one example, and I think his interventions on behalf of Waldorf and biodynamics is another."
Daniel:
I'm now curious about this. Do you have examples of people for whom Hess did not go to bat, even though they petitioned him directly?

Daniel Hindes (March 1st, 2004):
Some thoughts on what makes an Anthroposophist
The case of Rudolf Hess raises the question of what constitutes an Anthroposophist. A broad definition might define as an Anthroposophist as anyone who finds value in Steiner's work. This definition is overly broad, as it would include many people who might disagree with Steiner despite finding his work valuable in one or another aspect in the world. Defining as an Anthroposophist anyone who is a consumer of the practical results of Rudolf Steiner's spiritual insights is also overly broad, as it includes anyone who regularly buys Demeter or Waleda or Dr. Hauschka, as well as all Waldorf parents and anyone who happens to be treated in an anthroposophical clinic. Even if their patronage of these practical results borders on fanatical, as in the case of Rudolf Hess, I don't feel that this is sufficient to consider them an Anthroposophist. To me an Anthroposophist is, at the very least, someone who studies Steiner's work actively. But even this is not a full definition, for a number of very hostile critics arguably also fit this description. Whether or not a person is an Anthroposophist is very much a question of inner attitude towards the work of Steiner's as they actively study it. If they feel a sort of warm enthusiasm, then they are part of the way to meeting my definition.

Another way of approaching the question would be to ask, Who would Anthroposophists recognizes their own? Those who qualify would be those who in general accept the greater portion of Rudolf Steiner's teachings, or at least are among those who don't actively reject significant portions of it. This disqualifies those who pick and choose and make their own philosophy of racial superiority out of bits and pieces of Rudolf Steiner's work, for in doing this they reject Steiner's central principles. This also disqualifies those who go through a shorter or longer phase of their life in which they are enthusiastic supporters of Anthroposophy only to reject it later, either from neglect or by actively turning against it. These can be said to have
had an anthroposophical phase in their life, but the description 'Anthroposophist' cannot be applied to describe their life as a whole. This excludes Max Seiling and Gregor Schwartz-Bostunitsch, among others.

If we limit our definition to those people who have exhibited a lifelong enthusiastic support for Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner's teaching, in whole and not just portions thereof, then the list of historically tainted personalities becomes much shorter. Ernst Uhli still qualifies under this
definition, and I have to examine the case against him more closely. Finally, if we focus only on those personalities who are guilty of the historical sin of supporting aspects of national Socialism during their lifetimes, and neglect to look at the anthroposophical movement as a whole during that time period, then we will build a distorted picture, for the great majority of Anthroposophists deplored the developments in Germany under Hitler's regime.