[blitzfritz]

i don't know if he was bisexual, but considering his amours with young girls, esp. his niece, i'm pretty sure he wasn't all gay. and if he needed eva only for the show, i wonder why he hid her from public instead of really marrying her.

and if you will excuse me, there can be more reasons not to marry than being queer.

he did kill off homosexuals in Germany. Assuming he was gay, wouldn't he just leave the gays alone?

false. people trying to hide or suppressing their needs tend to suppress those needs on others too.
it's maddening to see others doing things you don't allow yourself to do.

[QatzelOk]

Stalin was gay.
www.stalinwasgay.org

Napoleon Bonaparte was bi.
www.napoleonbicurious.com

But Hitler was very hetero.
And typical of his sexuality, I find.
www.backatyou.net

[Polkovnik]

Stalin... gay... I have difficulty imagining that. I don't know what his 2 wives will say about that from the skies, and his 3 kids.

[Monkeydust]

I think it's been fairly solidly established that Hitler wasn't gay. But in answer to this:

Who cares if Hitler was gay?

Does it really matter?

I think it does matter quite a lot. It would imply that Hitler was conscious of the fact that he was something he openly proclaimed to despise, which would shed a lot of light on his character and psychology. It would be at least as important as any other psychological matter when talking about Hitler.

[1917]

Hmmm, good point Monkeydust but I still don't think it would be that remarkable, Hitler came from a age that repressed homosexuality and indeed many other things that are at least tolerated now-a-days, I know many gay people that were married with children, just because he hated gays does'nt make it impossible for him to have been one.

Also he does'nt have to have been concious of the fact he WAS gay, many people who have gay flings put it down to "curiosity"

It could probably say alot about his character indeed but it seems rather a lesser factor to me, he had an abusive father, just like Stalin which to me seems a more interesting point.

[Eddier1]

Hitler had many attributes of the bourgeoisie. His take on homosexuality
was as banal as that class's view that homosexuality was a sin, and
a mental disorder. However, the sin part meant nothing to him(he was an atheist); he innovated on that and with his notions of racial cleansing he did incorporate the destruction of the mentally defective as a necessary measure in order to insure the racial purity of the aryan race. So, it is highly probable that he exterminated all homosexuals because they were mentally defective, and not because of their "sinful" sexual preferences.

As a source can be indicated his personal role as an executioner of Rohm and other Brown shirts, not because they were homosexuals, but because their mental defectiveness disgusted Hitler; they could not be relyed upon
for political loyalty to the Nazi party, and, therefore, he assumed that
they were traitors in intent, and he personally executed them. How trite
was the banality of the bourgeoisie in their belief that "an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure".

Now, from the autopsy performed on his body by the Commies, it was discovered that Hitler had only one testicle.

Because of that anomaly, could he have felt threatened psychologically by homosexuals, or did he act on the basis of his social and political
doctrines, soley and only? Can any who subscribe openly or covertly to fascism on this board edify us on this?

[Lokakyy]

As a source can be indicated his personal role as an executioner of Roehm and other Brown shirts, not because they were homosexuals, but because their mental defectiveness disgusted Hitler; they could not be relyed upon
for political loyalty to the Nazi party, and, therefore, he assumed that
they were traitors in intent, and he personally executed them.

Röhm wasn't executed personally by Hitler - he was shot by an SS squad led by Theodor Eicke. The story that Hitler personally killed Röhm is a myth.

The actual reason why Röhm and his comrades were purged from SA was that they had become unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Röhm had enough power to threaten the absolute power of Hitler. Röhm and his cadres waited for the "second revolution" - the socialist part of the national-socialist. He also criticised the way how the Third Reich had given concessions to ancien régime, the conservatives of the military, industry and landowning Junkers. The "deviant" nature of Röhm - his homosexuality, alcoholism and loudmouthed demeanor were only secondary reasons that made purging him and his kind from the NSDAP easier.

Now, from the autopsy performed on his body by the Commies, it was discovered that Hitler had only one testicle.

Very questionable. His doctors never mention about that in their reports and the Soviet autopsy report you are talking about is lacking in many ways and its authenticity is questionable.

[Eddier1]

Well it is to be expected that I asked for fascist-orientated individuals on
the forum to decide the issue as to whether or not Hitler acted strictly for
political reasons or whether he acted out of personal hangups or issues
he had with homosexuality, and what did I get... Lokakyyy who calls it a
myth that Hitler "knew how to shoot a pistol" and personally followed
through in doing exactly that as the executioner who led a squad of SS to Rohm's 'digs" and personally did what he said he would, and that is to 'wash their dirty laundry among themselves'. How history becomes legend, and legends become myths.

And now he also doubts the credibility of the communist coroners who did
the autopsy, even opening Hitler's scrotum and finding only one testicle
there. Will wonders never cease, or must all the records and archives of
the NKVD and the KGB be burned like books, journals, and magazines
were burned by the Nazis in one huge bonfire...or perhaps the photographs were myths also...falsifications and croppings by reverse propaganda on the part of anti-fascists. Accordingly, I see that it can
work both ways. However my questions are still not addressed.

[Lokakyy]

Your post is incoherent, Eddier1 - are you saying that I'm a "fascist-oriented" individual?

Lokakyyy who calls it a myth that Hitler "knew how to shoot a pistol"

I'm sorry, but Hitler personally shooting Röhm is a myth. Hitler personally led the arrest in June 30, 1934. A pistol was offered to Röhm, so he could commit a suicide but he refused. After that he was held as a prisoner for two days and then shot by SS men.

I can source this both to Deutsches Historische Museum website and Dictionary of the Third Reich by Taylor & Shaw. It'd be easy to find more sources, but I don't see that necessary as you won't find a credible source supporting your argument.

And now he also doubts the credibility of the communist coroners who did
the autopsy, even opening Hitler's scrotum and finding only one testicle
there.

The autopsy report you are talking about doesn't for example mention the gunshot wound in his head. Or maybe Hitler really committed suicide by shooting his testicle off? The aforementioned autopsy report was quickly recognised as lacking both by Soviet and Western officials and experts. My point is not that it is absolutely surely false that Hitler had only one testicle, the thing is that the autopsy is dubious as a best and cannot be considered as a very reliable source.

When you reply this post could you please type complete, coherent sentences instead of incoherent stream of thought?

[Eddier1]

You still haven't addressed my questions! You have only rehashed your
first post. If you have trouble reading my subject--verb--objects as
declaratory sentences, you need not bother to read them. My style of
writing is not "incoherent", and it could be that you prefer simpler prose..
'like see Jane run stuff.

If my style is too complicated, such that you can't even get to the
main questions I asked, how is it that you took issue with history,
and introduced history rewritten, (which I call myth), and which
you rehash once again with your interpretation of what occurred.

You know damn well there are sources that maintain that Hitler
personally shot Rohm down...okay, so take issue with those
sources, and if you are able to understand my couple of questions,
I don't give a darn if you are a fascist or not a fascist. It is my
questions that are still not addressed by you...whatever your
political ideology might be is immaterial to me now! It would,
therefore, be a waste of my time to read more that you might
write on this issue.

BTW, in prose I don't subscribe to unity without diversity, and I got
nothing against stream of conciousness prose, although if you
would pay attention to my writings, you will find that you err in
calling them Faulknerian or whatever other stream of consciousness
writer you have encountered. What I can't stand is being lock-stepped
into simplicistic prose, such that a list of different writers all exhibit
the same stuff, and it is useless to even identify them by screenames.

[Lokakyy]

You're right - it is pointless to continue about this subject - or more exactly, to continue about this subject with you.

Every source I use you will declare wrong and yet you provide no tangible sources yourself except ominous "you know that there are sources that support my argument"-sentences that hold no content whatsoever.

[Eddier1]

And still you fail to give your view on the two questions I asked! You run
away and focus on other issues (like sources about when, how. and why
Hitler would take personal the washing of their own dirty laundry) Did he shoot the homosexual Rohm or not is peripheral to my basic questions,
and you still won't address them'

Don't be so sensitive, if you address them I won't label you a fascist,
even if you are a covert one. I opined that the most erudite answer
would come from those that maintain fascism as a political ideology.
But hey, whatever your dadism aesthetics, the culture of the sewer and
the beauty of utilities and excrement, I don't consider it a political ideology.

For all I know you might have an hidden agenda that is preventing you
from answering my questions. Or maybe you simply don't know the
answers, and that would be honest of you to admit. But you don't seem
to want to do that, but only to run away from them, throwing up a
smokesreen of style about prose, and sources which pro or con don't
affect the relevancy of my questions. In a nutshell for you, was
Hitler against Rohm because of his homosexuality, or because Rohm
was making an El Dorado out of the political ideology of the Nazi party as J. G., famed as the head of the Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightment, maintained?

[Lokakyy]

Eddie1 wrote:

You run away and focus on other issues

If you look at my first post, you will notice that I only adressed these two details because the other one was plainly wrong (Hitler shooting Röhm personally) and other more or less dubious (Testicle). On this forum, it is allowed to comment only on some things and leave others uncommented.

I won't label you a fascist, even if you are a covert one.

Frankly my dear, I don't care what you label me.

But hey, whatever your dadism aesthetics, the culture of the sewer and
the beauty of utilities and excrement, I don't consider it a political ideology

It is spelled "dadaism" and it is only an elaborate joke to ridicule the entire categorical system of "ideologies" - or more accurately, the sanctity of -isms. If you browse this forum, you will notice that there are others who have typed something silly after the "ideology"-thing.

Or maybe you simply don't know the answers, and that would be honest of you to admit.

So you maintain that there is an answer that is right to your question?

In a nutshell for you, was
Hitler against Rohm because of his homosexuality, or because Rohm
was making an El Dorado out of the political ideology of the Nazi party

Put your eyeglasses on and read what I posted. I already answered that question. I'm sad that I will have to quote myself:

Lokakyy wrote:

The actual reason why Röhm and his comrades were purged from SA was that they had become unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Röhm had enough power to threaten the absolute power of Hitler. Röhm and his cadres waited for the "second revolution" - the socialist part of the national-socialist. He also criticised the way how the Third Reich had given concessions to ancien régime, the conservatives of the military, industry and landowning Junkers. The "deviant" nature of Röhm - his homosexuality, alcoholism and loudmouthed demeanor were only secondary reasons that made purging him and his kind from the NSDAP easier.

Now what part of your question I didn't answer?

['Freiheits Kämpfer']

Hitler was also a Jew...or so they say.
-FK

[Eddier1]

There you go!

Lokakyy wrote:
Quote:

The actual reason why Röhm and his comrades were purged from SA was that they had become unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Röhm had enough power to threaten the absolute power of Hitler. Röhm and his cadres waited for the "second revolution" - the socialist part of the national-socialist. He also criticised the way how the Third Reich had given concessions to ancien régime, the conservatives of the military, industry and landowning Junkers. The "deviant" nature of Röhm - his homosexuality, alcoholism and loudmouthed demeanor were only secondary reasons that made purging him and his kind from the NSDAP easier.

You wrote that to some other poster as a reply to a post, but you did not
repeat that to me, until now, which would have been the thing to do as an anwer to my questions.

Were you chary about revealing that you know fascist
ways in depth, and that we commies would infer that you are a fascist?
Suck it up!, and move on, and thanks for the bit about dadaism. It was a
joke to ridicule the rationality of isms or theoretical systems. Another nail
in the coffin of fascism, by saying that, since we commies at least know
how you guys hate the intellectual ways of reason, and instead worship the
irrational depths that prompt instinct and attack!

Relax, I am still not labeling you as anything; I only have my druthers as to what you are, and won't make a federal case about that, for sure. Thanks for your efforts in these matters...dadaism for fun and laughs.

[| I, CWAS |]

However, the sin part meant nothing to him(he was an atheist)

Evidence, i have heard him talk about his perception of God, but never claim that he was an athiest, or even that such a belief was foolish or not.

[Eddier1]

More religionist stuff, The Nazi and/or fascist party was
officially an enforcer of atheism, that is why they burned all the bibles
and religious tracts and journals, along with lots of other metaphysical garbage at the historic BONFIRE.

What evidence do you want more than that?; are you
going to say the 'mark' did not stop at the desk of the head of the Nazi Party?

It is well known that all Nazis and their Fuhrer were atheists.

Get real, and read history and religion to edify yourself and stop making asides like in your post!

[| I, CWAS |]

More religionist stuff, Eh? Damn it, the Nazi and/or fascist party was
officially an enforcer of atheism, that is why they burned all the bibles
and religious tracts and journals, along with a lots of other metaphysical garbage at the historic BONFIRE.

What evidence do you want more than that?; are you
going to say the 'mark' did not stop at the desk of the head of the Nazi Party?

It is well known that all Nazis and their Fuhrer were atheists. Get real, and
read history and religion to edify yourself and stop making useless asides
like in your post! Roll eyes

If it was, then you should have no problem providing a source. Heart depth beliefs aside, the party did not enforce athiesm:

A growing body of scholarly research, some based on careful analysis of Nazi records, is clarifying this complex history.2 It reveals a convoluted pattern of religious and moral failure in which atheism and the nonreligious played little role, except as victims of the Nazis and their allies

2. Seminal studies by mainstream, nonpolemical researchers include Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Ian Kershaw, Hitler: 1889–1936: Hubris (New York: W W Norton, 1998) and Hitler: 1936–1945: Nemesis (London: Allen Lane, 2000); Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich vols. 1 and 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979 [English version, 1988]); Nathan Stoltzfus, Resistance of the Heart: The Rosenstrasse Protest and Intermarriage in Nazi Germany (New York: W.W. Norton, 1997); Beth Griech-Polelle, Bishop von Galen: German Catholicism and National Socialism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002); and Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans, and the “Jewish Question” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984). Also see John Patrick Michael Murphy, “Hitler Was Not an Atheist,” Free Inquiry 19, no. 2 (Spring 1999).

The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis

I have never seen, any evidence of the nazi's promoting athiesm, i just watched triumph of the will for the 10th time, and say many bishops, and hitler praising them, from what I hear, hitler was pretty influential in the nazi party. And if you are enforing athiesm, praising bishops, and speaking of God, is not condusive to said promotion/enforcement.

[Eddier1]

Ancient Chinese wisdom; one picture is worth a thousand words. The
BONFIRE says more than all the viewpoints of scholars in ivory towers,
IMHO.

As to the connection with churches and Bishops and such, it was
a political move on the part of the Nazi party, and a shrewd one too
in getting the approval of the R.C. Church and the Pope himself for
the destructive religious policies of the fascists against Judaism and
ultimately Judeo Christianity, too. The key word used often by Nazis
as to the J.Cers was that they were all white Jews, and Judeo-
Christianity was a "swindling Jew religion". Need I remind you
of the holocaust and the attempt at destroying Judaism which the
Nazis considered was the root cause of all the errors of religionism
in Europe. There were Popes and Bishops also who were Nazis, and
I guess you don't know that either.

[Lokakyy]

Eddier1 wrote:

You wrote that to some other poster as a reply to a post, but you did not
repeat that to me, until now, which would have been the thing to do as an anwer to my questions.

Well, glad we got that sorted out now.

Were you chary about revealing that you know fascist
ways in depth, and that we commies would infer that you are a fascist?

No, I wasn't - to be honest, if communists think that having knowledge about Third Reich makes one a fascist then so be it.

It was a joke to ridicule the rationality of isms or theoretical systems.

Don't make strawman argumentations. Questioning the necessity of a rigid system doesn't mean disbelieving the whole structure.

since we commies at least know how you guys hate the intellectual ways of reason, and instead worship the irrational depths that prompt instinct and attack!

Hatred against intellectual ways of reason indeed, but yet I am the only one who bothered to source my arguments.