Was the Hindenburg sabotaged, or was it a freak accident?

Answer 1

As with many historic events, interpretations of the causes are often coloured by politics and polemics.

On the one hand, some speculate that the German government of that era placed the blame on flammable hydrogen in order to cast the U.S. helium embargo in a bad light. Others suggest that present-day proponents of hydrogen as a transportation fuel have forwarded a "flammable fabric" analysis of the fire in order to deflect public concern about the safety of hydrogen.

Nonetheless, there remain three major points of contention: 1) How the fire started, 2) Which material (fabric or gas) started to burn first and 3) Which material (fabric or gas) caused the rapid spread of the fire.

[edit]
Cause of ignition
[edit]
Sabotage theory
At the time, sabotage was commonly put forward as the cause of the fire, in particular by Hugo Eckener, former head of the Zeppelin company and the "old man" of the German airships. (Eckener later publicly endorsed the static spark theory — see below.) The Zeppelin airships were widely seen as symbols of German and Nazi power. As such, they would have made tempting targets for opponents of the Nazis.

Another proponent of the sabotage hypothesis was Max Pruss, commander of the Hindenburg throughout the airship's career. Pruss flew on nearly every flight of the Graf Zeppelin until the Hindenburg was ready. In a 1960 interview conducted by Kenneth Leish on behalf of Columbia's Oral History Research Office, he described early dirigible use as safe and felt strongly that the fire was caused by sabotage. Pruss stated that on trips to South America, which was a popular destination for German tourists, both ships passed through multiple thunderstorms with lightning striking the ship without any trouble whatsoever.

Several theories as to who the alleged saboteur may have been have been put forward. In particular, some have alleged that Zionist agents working against increasingly anti-semitic Germany were behind the fire.

In 1962, A. Hoehling published a book entitled Who Destroyed the Hindenburg?. In the book, Hoehling considers and rejects all explanations except sabotage. He alleges that the most likely saboteur is one Eric Spehl, a rigger on the Hindenburg crew who was killed at Lakehurst.

Ten years later, Michael MacDonald Mooney published his own book, The Hindenburg. He, too, alleges that Spehl was the saboteur.

Those putting Spehl forward as the alleged saboteur focus on several historic threads including: the course of Spehl’s own life, his girlfriend’s anti-Nazi connections (she was reportedly a suspected communist opposed to the Nazis); that the fire started near Gas Cell 4 (Spehl’s duty station); the discovery of a dry-cell battery among the wreckage; the fact that Spehl was an amateur photographer familiar with flashbulbs that could have served as an igniter (presumably wired to the above mentioned dry cells); and rumors about Spehl’s involvement dating from a 1938 Gestapo investigation.

However, opponents of the sabotage theory claim that no firm evidence, only suppositions, supporting sabotage as a cause of the fire was produced at any of the formal hearings on the matter. The opponents also claim that the sabotage theory rests on selective use of the available evidence. They point out that Spehl could be viewed as a convenient scapegoat as he died in the fire and was hence unable to refute the accusations made against him. These opponents also believe that the sabotage theory was fostered by the children of Max Pruss in an effort to exonerate their father. They also point out that neither of the postwar memoirs of Eckener or von Schiller contained any support for the notion of "suppressed investigation findings" and, given the timing of the memoirs, there would be little incentive for these two airshipmen to perpetuate a cover-up of the then fallen Nazi regime. This is particularly true of Eckener who had been extremely vocal in his opposition to the Nazis during their rise to power.

And finally, opponents point to the fact that neither of the formal investigations (American and German) concluded in favor of any of the sabotage theories.

Answer 2

Freak Accident

Answer 3

The generally-accepted explanation is that there was a discharge of static electricity from the nose of the Hindenburg to its metal mooring pole. This discharge created a fire, which may have ignited a small concentration of hydrogen from minor tank leakage within the envelope.
That's why, these days, both airships and helicopters drop a "grounding cable" first. (Here's a tip from experience... never try to get hold of a helo winch cable until AFTER it's been grounded... :-) ... and why airships now use helium...

Of course, there are also conspiracy theories which suggest rockets, bombs, incendiary shells, fanatics with flare guns and other, less likely, concepts.
Quite honestly, flying a bag full of hydrogen is sufficiently dangerous anyway... it really doesn't need much help, it's quite capable of blowing up all by itself...

Answer 4

Definitely a freak accident. There was a lot of static electricity in the area, and when the Hindenberg hit the tower it was supposed to dock at, the static electricity ignited the hydrogen it was filled with. That's when they went to helium, which is an inert gas.

Answer 5

The official story is that is was a combination thing of a leaking cell and static electrical spark ----but for alot of people the jury is still out to this day---I've seen two dramas (made for TV things) where they exploited the sabotage thing to the hilt .........

Answer 6

Partly an accident, partly stupidity. The cloth that the blimp part was made out of was highly flammable; that's what started the fire, not the hydrogen.

Answer 7

it was a freak accident---if it was going to be sabotaged it would have been better to do it while it was at sea.

Answer 8

This is an in house debate. Nobody knows exactly what happened. My late grandmother used to talk about this. Truly one of the great disasters of all time.

Answer 9

Lightning accident, I believe.

Answer 10

Accident due to stupidity!