The History Book Club discussion

The chapter on Hanns, I feel can be summed up with the picture on page 44. The Alexander family was very well off financially; in the top of the upper class.Very few Germans/Europeans could afford a car in the twenties and the car they are pictured in is one that would have cost a lifetime of earnings for the common German.
The chapter concerning Rudolf gives me an insight into Heinrich Himmler that I had not previously realized. He met Rudolf early on (as he did several other what came to be top SS) and took them under his wing, so to speak, in preparation for them to take part in the "special" world he was creating. Himmler was far more manipulative than I realized.
By the way, training at Dachau by "Papa Eicke" including viewing cruelty, or having to punish the person next to you was standard.

As they grew to maturity, Rudolf had virtually nothing, while Hanns grew up in an affluent world, with access to all sorts of movie stars, etc. Dr. Alexander's medical practice was very successful, and his patients were the glitterati of Berlin. The family bought a weekend house in Gross Glienicke, and the twins learned how to water ski.

Meanwhile, the transformation of Rudolf in Chapter 5 shocked me. He was always looking for a father figure, and he found it in Himmler. He followed him and joined the SS and then the Nazi party. This is when he first became involved with concentration camps. He committed his first execution, which really bothered him. He did not want to do it but did so to please Himmler and to show him that he was tough and a good officer. "Rudolf had demonstrated to his superiors that he was capable of implementing their harshest orders . . ., he was a . . .trustworthy officer of the SS . . .and he had become a hardened instrument of blind loyalty." (p. 71)

"The Road Not Taken" perfectly describes Rudolf's choices and their consequences.

Great points, Nita. Himmler must have had some strong charisma, maybe a quiet one, especially compared to Hitler, and we see this with Rudolf.

Bryan wrote: "Great points, Nita. Himmler must have had some strong charisma, maybe a quiet one, especially compared to Hitler, and we see this with Rudolf."
Bryan....Himmler is a study in body language.

As we observe the life of Hanns growing up, we get the picture of a family that is engaged and involved together, both among themselves and also with the larger society. Hanns was initiated into a broad cultural world in Berlin. No doubt all these things were stabilizing and maturing factors in making him the person he became.
Rudolf, on the other hand, experienced a very different life that was traumatic and probably pushed him to look for security and a place to belong in the world. With his parents' deaths, the experiences of fighting in World War I, his Right Wing escapades, and his time in prison, Rudolf seemed to be increasingly torn from any stabilizing forces or influences that might have engendered in him a sense of compassion and caring toward other people.

Pages 69-70 give us a seemingly incomprehensible picture of Rudolf as a loving father and cruel prison administrator. But his experiences had most likely molded him into an individual who viewed people as being tools that needed to be disciplined, punished, managed, and if necessary, eliminated. His care for his own family was something entirely different in his mind, since they belonged to him and were those who he cared about. Having experienced killing in World War I and the hardness of prison, he was becoming the hardened killing machine that was required for him to belong in a group where he felt accepted.

Welcome Lewis - I was wondering where you were.

Lewis - a very interesting analogy to Rudolf's viewing people as tools or instruments and an insight to Rudolf's ability to compartmentalize.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but in reading this I think that Rudolf has an obsession with a dark form of "loyalty", bordering on pathology. Even from the betrayal of a priest to the rumored betrayal of another member of the Freikorps by Walter Kadow (which Rudolf and Bormann killed, then Rudolf took majority of the blame for) to his loyalty to Himmler, etc. Loyalty seemed to be what he admired most in others, even overlooking brutality- until that trait became dominant in himself.
I am also wondering how Bormann went from helping kill Kadow and being saved with a slap on the wrist to touring the camp with Himmler as a fellow SS officer?

Cary, that is very interesting because I thought that he was psychologically impaired as a child. You pointed out the same life events that I was curious about. He handled each one of them in a bizarre way.

Bormann was expert at climbing the organization's ladder. He not only did not like the Jewish people - he did not care for Christians either or any organized religion or any religious values or members of any church. He married the daughter of a Nazi official and Hitler actually attended the wedding. He was ruthless and would do anything to ingratiate himself with the Nazi leaders. No conscience whatsoever.

Seems like Bormann and Rudolf were two peas in a pod, except, perhaps that Bormann seems to have been more ambitious and hungary for power. Meanwhile, it seems to me Rudolph's obsession with what he considered locality dovetailed with his pathological need for approval and trust of a leader figure.

Similar - but some differences. Bormann was known as being an extremely cruel man in every sense of the word - Rudolf seemed to have compartmentalized his life and had from all accounts the love of his family at the time. I think there was a softer side to Rudolf which is even stranger than Bormann who from all accounts was coarse, brutal and cruel in the extreme.

Rudolf's last name for our purposes in this discussion should be spelled Hoess. We were spelling it a variety of ways. But Hoess it is.

In chapter 4 we learned a little more about Hans' life of privilege, but I am still waiting to get a good sense of him. I did appreciate the references to his growing independence, and I think that will be something that is important later in his life.

In chapter 5 I found it interesting to read how Rudolph became involved in the SS. I do agree that killing his friend seemed to be a turning point for him. Comments 76 and 77 by Vince and Teri were along the lines that struck me when reading. I think the term friend can mean different things to different people. Rudolph has relationship issues even with those he considers himself close to. Rudolph thought he and Hedwig "were made for each other and were harmoniously united in confidence and understanding"(p54) yet "he felt unable to share his feelings with her"(p 56). I think it likely there was a similar conflicting relationship between Rudolph and his friend. He felt close to him in his way, but it did not trump other things in his life such as: self preservation or authority issues.

Good point Whitney - Rudolf seems to have problems understanding that relationships should have some emotional depth.

Too true, Bentley.......Rudolf seemed to be bereft of the emotions of closeness, friendship, and love. He had emotions but they were more on the dark side as we continue to see as we go forward with the book.

Yes Jill - I think though and I am going out on a limb - but I think that Rudolf had a deep capacity for love which he kept locked up making it virtually impossible for him to allow anybody to really connect with him that could potentially hurt him in any way. I think in a way that is why he loved horses or why some folks love their dogs, cats or other pets because here they are allowed unconditional love with no strings attached and no fear of getting hurt. Rudolf was one bottled up man. And unfortunately when they were released (if in fact they were) - they seemed to propel him to do some very bad things without remorse (at least at the time). He was a man loved by his children and I believe in his own way he loved them too and tried to provide for them.

I think when Thomas Harding discusses Hoess's memoirs and the copies that he had viewed in Hoess's daughter's home as well as in his uncle's - this is what he said"

“It was a copy that looked tattered from much use,” Harding relates. “I have learned that history changes according to one’s point of view and that it is never as clear as we would have expected it to be.”

You did go out on a limb but I think it was the right limb!!!! You have made a good point, especially about the animals. But yet he could only seem to allow his dark side to rule his actions.

Yes for sure - and his actions defined who he was and what he became and what ultimately happened to him.

And I think the same is true of Hanns - his actions even as they related to Hoess defined who he was, what he became and the fact that the copy of Hoess's memoirs was in his house and the copy looked tattered from much use - his actions as they related to this man tormented him for all of his life - he never forgot Hoess.