Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess

I've read many books from the view of Holocaust survivors, but this was the first time reading the point of view from the other side. I think when you learn about the Holocaust, you're always left with the question of "How could a nation allow such hate?" Rudolf Hoess very well written, and seemingly honest, account on this matter gives a lot of food for thought. Definitely worth a read

Those 1-star reviews saying it was written under torture, have definitely not read it.The Kindle edition is apparently based on scanning an older print, with a basic autocorrect, but no human editing applied. The amount of mis-identified words and dates is staggering. It would badly need a human editor to read it through. This is the reason for only 4 stars.Höss wrote it after having been captured, having testified in Nürnberg, and indeed received the physical abuse, that he much deserved. Yet, while writing it he was in a peaceful environment, and took this opportunity to leave trace and explanation of his deeds, faith and roles seriously. Just as seriously, as his role in the years prior. There was no doubt in his mind, how he would end, and thus had no reason to be dishonest.It gives an insight into his upbringing, how his mindset turned to focus on doing the best job possible, and to trust and follow his superiors' orders. He was proud of his achievement - building the greatest human destruction machine up to date (and still not surpassed in 2024).A chilling read, especially in combination with the Vrba-Wetzler Report (and the story , showing the two sides of what happend in Auschwitz. It gives a blank insight into how almost any person can become capable of the most horrific deeds.

In this you look deep into the mind of a stone-cold sociopath, though he was unaware of his own diagnosis, that is he has a basic inability to process emotion situations. It becomes apparent on the second or third page when Rudolf Hoess, in his own words, claims that despite being loved by his family, he never had any real emotional attachments to them. This makes him the perfect person to run an concentration camp.Don't expect any real declarations or signs of regret. He makes them, but they are obviously not heart-felt. Hoess claims he did not want to run a camp, which seems to be true, but not because they are morally evil. but due to the administrative difficulties such a place presented. He blames everyone for the place: he was not given enough supplies, he was given the worst guards and administrators to run the place, he had to do everything himself. Hoess claims that he did not like torture, which seems to be true, but simply because it made HIM feel uneasy for reasons he can't understand. Additionally, he hated torture because it was inefficient and took away from the work.Hoess tries to weasel out of culpability by claiming he was lied to about the nature of the camp, that he believed it was to be a forced labor camp, not an extermination camp. But then in one of appendices, he goes into detail on the procedure for creating the gas chambers and how people were lured in there. I trust the details of the camp life, and his observation of people, but the emotional elements are manufactured. He claims to understand that he did wrong, but the man obviously doesn't understand the concept. His attempts at claiming contrition are most likely some Hail Mary attempt at a reprieve, which did not work.

If you like history, specifically this subject matter, what better source than this for someone who has been there and done that? The man who wrote this is dead so he doesn't the impact of his work. Included is a powerful preface from another source that will have you NEVER forgetting the subject matter plus it enhances the read

Several times while reading “Commandant of Auschwitz” I was inclined to throw it in the trash. Not because it was poorly written, but out of sheer revulsion regarding the character of the author. Several reviewers have declared that since at least some of Rudolf Hoess' confession was beaten out of him that anything he said or wrote must be viewed with skepticism if not thrown out entirely. My view is that although there is little doubt that some of Hoess' confession was coerced (see "KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps" by Nikolaus Wachsmann for a more detailed treatment of the subject) there is still much to be learned about Hoess as a person and what he did or did not do as, in his words, "a cog in the wheel of the great extermination machine created by the Third Reich."One of the themes that is striking is simply the number of times that Hoess blames everyone around him for the evil of the camps and the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question." Thus, according to Hoess, it is not the existence of the camps that was the problem, but the fact that the camps were poorly planned and administered. More times than I care to count he insists that as a "soldier" his only option was to obey the orders of those his senior. In like fashion, it is almost nauseating how often he blames his subordinates for the horrible conditions prevailing at Auschwitz. Perhaps even worse, he blames the victims for their own suffering and deaths. While the title "Soldier" may apply to Hoess' military service in WWI, that title most certainly does not apply to his actions while a member of the Freikorps in the 1920s or in the SS from 1933 to 1945. Soldiers fight as members of an established national army in a declared conflict against an armed enemy. Criminals, not Soldiers, engage in acts of sadism and murder against defenseless non-combatants.In my mind, it is impossible to resolve the conflict between a man purportedly determined to do everything in his power to alleviate suffering and the same man speaking casually about shooting uncooperative victims in the neck to prevent disorder during the gassing process. Did Adolf Hitler, Hermann Goering, and Heinrich Himmler simply create the mass murder apparatus out of thin air, without willing accomplices? Was Commandant Hoess so detached from the building and operation of Auschwitz that he bears no culpability regarding the atrocities inflicted on people whose crime was occupying the lower rungs of the Nazi racial ladder? If that were the case, then there can be no real guilt among any of the thousands of individuals involved in implementing the Final Solution, which is, of course, both absurd and false. Of Hoess’ guilt, there is no question. He may not have dumped Zyklon-B crystals into the gas chamber with his own hand, but his fingerprints were all over the canister.As an aside, the biographical sketches contained in the appendices are informative and illuminating. “Commandant of Auschwitz” is most certainly worthwhile reading for anyone interested in the era.

Sad read, unbelievable historical factsHighly recommended for history lovers

Research. What surprises you are the many unfamiliar details and the dispassionate tone of the account, such as why Jehovah's Witnesses were the only prison laborers highly esteemed by their masters.

Serviço prestado pela Amazon e qualidade do livro, notas 10! Plenamente satisfeito com minha compra. Recomendo a todos o site.

Trying to read this one is hard work. Not only for the content, but because there are so many typos! In many cases it appears the original German words, such as "die", "das" etc. haven't been translated into English at all. Makes it confusing to parse the syntax a lot of the times.

Si capisce a cosa si va incontro dalla recensione di Primo Levi. E' un libro difficile da leggere sapendo di cosa l'autore sia stato capace di fare in nome di una convinta obbedienza a qualcosa di estremamente sbagliato. La sua descrizione dei fatti è fredda e vuota di rimorso. Un libro comunque da leggere, per non dimenticare e per imparare i limiti del pensare collettivo