Did hitler personally kill anyone?

  • Thread starter Smurf
  • Start date
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,854
14
I really don't suspect that greenpeace is going to be able to cause anything on the scale of world war II anytime soon..
 
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
zoobyshoe said:
Thing is, Mao and Stalin did pretty much the same thing without being the same kind of oraters. Then you have Pol pot, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein, among others. None of them Hitler style orators.
Here, the major difference between these guys and A.H. is that while they were certainly able to influence enough individuals to retain power (and, from that power base be able to exert their atrocities), A.H. managed to make practically every German into a fervent Jew-hater and make persecution into a widely popular MASS MOVEMENT. This is not true of any of the guys mentioned.

While the "feats" of Mao, Stalin etc. might well be duplicated, those by Hitler is a lot rarer.
 
4,453
57
I really don't suspect that greenpeace is going to be able to cause anything on the scale of world war II anytime soon..
The first Kyoto war will start at 21 December 2012.

Scenario:

Orange land had joined the Kyoto treaty as the last in 2004 when it became apparent that it's economical crisis would ensure meeting the emission standards, Now in 2012, it has succeeded in reducing the emissions to the agreed level but observes that many other countries do not, and worse those countries are not showing any intention of paying the enforced fee for that. Now it has organized a Kyoto enforcement pact with the other countries that did the meet the standards as well.

The White land confederation that used to be a prosperous unity is in a deep crisis due to the attempts to abide Kyoto but failed. Now it's unable to cut back any further and it's unable to pay more than 0,0005% of the fee.

The Orange land pact invades the White land confederations on horseback and with carts to enforce the payment of the fee. The First Kyoto war
 
Last edited:
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,131
1,145
zoobyshoe said:
Paranoia is very different than being circumspect and cautious for survival reasons. He pretty much set himself up such that he insured there'd be huge numbers of people out to get him.
Step 1 in any political career.

At the end of WWI no one knew who he was or cared. He spent years calling attention to himself in the worst way. Cautious people who want to survive don't do that. They keep a low profile.

Anyway, I'm not aware that that personality assessment was ever made public while he was alive,
OSS commissioned the study in a genuine effort to be able to predict his moves in advance; they got a load of Freudian quackery that was useless, and turned it over to the propaganda dept.. Make it public? You don't tell the homefront that they are being manipulated.

and, did anything in it really make it into any anti-Hitler propaganda? I had the impression that study was undertaken just to assess what they were up against, strengths and weaknesses.


Those symptoms I mentioned might well have their roots in the things you cited.
However, there were peculiar neurological things going on well before that. There are two films I've seen of him in the throes of this very strange, exited, rocking from side to side. One was during a speech. The other, he was sitting alone in some bleachers in a stadium by himself, rocking left-right left-right, very fast. (I think that was some footage taken before a rehearsal for some speech or other.)
More of the "Versailles dance." Kinda doubt that trick was used just once.

At Berchesgarten he used to go out alone onto a large patio and pace back and forth ranting out loud to no one for about three hours a day.
Demosthenes shouted at the waves with a mouthful of pebbles. Does wonders for voice control.

Stories of him doing that go back to a report of a neighbor seeing him do it as a boy or teenager in the yard back of his house.
Do you know how many people talked to Ted Bundy and "knew" he was going to do something awful?

In Mein Kampf he, himself, confessed that he blacked out when he stood up and shouted for 20 minutes from the audience at the first meeting of the NSDAP he attended. People congratulated him for his patriotism and ferver afterward but he, himself, couldn't remember a word he'd said.
Unless you are one of the one in a hundred, you can't remember a single word of the first two minute speech you presented in Jr. High or Middle School.

Something very weird happened to him once he got started shouting. He had to have been experiencing a gross distortion of his sense of time (I mean, who in their right mind gives 5 hour speeches?). Then there are those stories of him starting off shouting at someone and ending up writhing on the floor chewing on the carpet. One of his aids coined a secret nickname for him: "Der Teppichfresser".
Figure of speech, a colloquialism, much as critics describe Robin Williams acting style as "gnawing on the scenery." The literal translation was taken as fact by someone "freshly fallen from the turnip truck" and incorporated into the "why we fight" films and cartoons.

He did not start out with a sound brain. That is: I believe there was something organically wrong with it. Blacking out and hours of shouting everyday = some kind of pathology.
It is the pathology of politics. The man was a traditionalist, believing in face to face rallies rather than fireside chats, but otherwise indistinguishable from Roosevelt, or Churchill and "Fight them on the beaches, in the dunes, in the hedgerows, in the cottages, from the ditches....."
 
6,171
1,275
arildno said:
Here, the major difference between these guys and A.H. is that while they were certainly able to influence enough individuals to retain power (and, from that power base be able to exert their atrocities), A.H. managed to make practically every German into a fervent Jew-hater and make persecution into a widely popular MASS MOVEMENT. This is not true of any of the guys mentioned.
While the "feats" of Mao, Stalin etc. might well be duplicated, those by Hitler is a lot rarer.
I see the distinction you're making, but I'm not sure it's as important as you make it. If Pol Pot manages to gather enough people around him as he needs to seize power and persecute "intellectuals" (which is what he did), then it doesn't matter that he doesn't have mass support. All he needs is mass passivity, lack of opposition, while he rampages, and sets up killing fields. Mao and Stalin each executed more of their own countrymen in their seizure and maintainence of power than Hitler killed Jews. I don't remember the figure for Stalin, but I'm sure I read Mao executed at least ten million Chinese during his tyranny. So, after a point you would find the average Chinese person spouting rabid anti-capitalist jargon, in order not to be taken away and executed, just as the average German learned to vilify Jews and give the Hitler salute when meeting a neighbor.

As far as I know, there were only ever two orator-dictators, Hitler and Mussolini, and in the long haul of history, they were unusual for that. The usual method is terror and behind the scenes machinations. Mussolini and Hitler did both of those as well.
 
6,171
1,275
Bystander said:
Step 1 in any political career.
I know, but you're missing my point about the difference between caution in a dangerous world and paranoia. When I say he was paranoid, I mean it in the psychiatric/psychological sense, not that he was merely justifiably locking his doors at night, staying away from bad neighborhoods after dark, and keeping his marks in a money belt, the kinds of cautious things that might casually be exaggerated as "paranoid".
OSS commissioned the study in a genuine effort to be able to predict his moves in advance; they got a load of Freudian quackery that was useless, and turned it over to the propaganda dept.. Make it public? You don't tell the homefront that they are being manipulated.
What I'm asking is whether the propaganda dept ever actually used it to publically lampoon him as you suggested. I'm not aware of any effort to make him look silly outside of the Chaplin film and a three stooges episode.
More of the "Versailles dance." Kinda doubt that trick was used just once.
This strikes me as a knee-jerk dismissal of something you haven't seen yourself. The first footage I mentioned is clearly not a loop since he is speaking the whole time he's rocking from side to side, and you can see his mouth match his words, as well as extraneous, non-repeated movements. The other footage doesn't have him speaking as a check, but there are no peculiar "versaille jig" jerks in it to suggest it isn't a continuous piece of film. There's no reason to doubt it's genuine since I saw him doing the same thing in the speech film.
Demosthenes shouted at the waves with a mouthful of pebbles. Does wonders for voice control.
He was trying to overcome a speech impediment, an excercize he undertook deliberately. Hitler was talking out loud to himself: cultivating his self image and fantasy world.
Do you know how many people talked to Ted Bundy and "knew" he was going to do something awful?
No one came to the conclusion young, weird Hitler was going to do anything awful. They remembered this stuff just cause it was so weird.
Unless you are one of the one in a hundred, you can't remember a single word of the first two minute speech you presented in Jr. High or Middle School.
He was 34 at the time, and couldn't remember it right after he'd said it.
Figure of speech, a colloquialism, much as critics describe Robin Williams acting style as "gnawing on the scenery." The literal translation was taken as fact by someone "freshly fallen from the turnip truck" and incorporated into the "why we fight" films and cartoons.
In the account I read, the carpet chewing was literal. After a period of frenzied screaming at someone, he fell to the floor, rolled around, and ended up gnawing on the edge of the carpet. The aids ushered everyone out of the room, closed the door, and waited till he eventually came out, apparently unaware of anything unusual.
It is the pathology of politics. The man was a traditionalist, believing in face to face rallies rather than fireside chats, but otherwise indistinguishable from Roosevelt, or Churchill and "Fight them on the beaches, in the dunes, in the hedgerows, in the cottages, from the ditches....."
I don't believe that. Hitler's speech style grew out of his mania. He could basically not stop himself from venting like that. The text of his speeches is awful: full of purple prose, mixed metaphores, repetitions, and incoherent logic. This wasn't a choice for political purposes. He couldn't concentrate to sit down and write. He had to dictate his book to Hess, and they had a hard time talking him out of his original title: "Four and a Half Years of Struggle Against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice." Hitler couldn't understand why that wasn't a perfectly good title.
 
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,131
1,145
zoobyshoe said:
I know, but you're missing my point about the difference between caution in a dangerous world and paranoia. When I say he was paranoid, I mean it in the psychiatric/psychological sense,
Between the definition of paranoia I got in Abnormal Psych. 40 yrs ago and DSM III 20 yrs. ago, very little human behavior, other than Karen Quinlan and Terry Schiavo type vegetation, isn't paranoid. I'm not brushing you off here, but "paranoid" to the Freudians is not equivalent to today's "non-analytical" (in the Freudian sense) diagnoses. Wild man? Sure. Affected behavior? Churchill's cigar? FDR's cigarette holder? It's politics.
not that he was merely justifiably locking his doors at night, staying away from bad neighborhoods after dark, and keeping his marks in a money belt, the kinds of cautious things that might casually be exaggerated as "paranoid".
What I'm asking is whether the propaganda dept ever actually used it to publically lampoon him as you suggested. I'm not aware of any effort to make him look silly outside of the Chaplin film and a three stooges episode.
Editorial cartoons, WB, Disney, MGM animations, "... personally shoot the paper-hanging son of a b*tch" (Patton, the movie, reflects the dissemination of myth that took place at the time), I'll have to check "Up Front," "Sad Sack," and other "contemporary literature."
This strikes me as a knee-jerk dismissal of something you haven't seen yourself.
Damn! Caught me. It is. Did a little "lab work" on it last night, turned down the sound on Fox (that's a lie, it's always down, and I don't watch anything but the ticker) and watched John Kerry rock from left to right and back 3-4 times in a 10 or 15 sec clip of dem reactions to Bush. Is he a neural pathology case? Or got bladder disease? Or just fidgety?
Watch film of T. Roosevelt, any of the early 20th century pols campaigning, and you'll see the same things. We might have some speech pathologists, or communications degrees on the forum who can say whether a metronomic movement of the body is a technique to get an audience "tuned-in" to the speaker's rhythm.
The first footage I mentioned is clearly not a loop since he is speaking the whole time he's rocking from side to side, and you can see his mouth match his words, as well as extraneous, non-repeated movements. The other footage doesn't have him speaking as a check, but there are no peculiar "versaille jig" jerks in it to suggest it isn't a continuous piece of film. There's no reason to doubt it's genuine since I saw him doing the same thing in the speech film.
He was trying to overcome a speech impediment, an excercize he undertook deliberately. Hitler was talking out loud to himself: cultivating his self image and fantasy world.
Hah! Gotcha!
Seriously, are you denying oratorical rehearsals? This is early 20th century, and yeah, he had PA systems, and yeah, they broke down a lot, and yeah, he did have to shout.
No one came to the conclusion young, weird Hitler was going to do anything awful. They remembered this stuff just cause it was so weird.
What I was getting at here is that there are lots of people who remember lots of things ex post facto. Much as Cayce and Nostradamus are visionaries ex post facto.
He was 34 at the time, and couldn't remember it right after he'd said it.
Politics is the art of making noise without saying anything. If I want to be really terse in summarizing English speaking history, I quote Lincoln, "A house divided...," FDR, "A date which...," and Churchill, "Never have so many...." When I'm feeling long-winded, I'll include TR, "Speak softly...."
There are very few memorable sounds that emerge from the mouths of politicians, and as the perpetrators, they are probably the first to forget what noises they make.
In the account I read, the carpet chewing was literal.
I could be wrong. This has also been triumphed as one of THE propaganda successes of all time; serendipitous, but a success.
After a period of frenzied screaming at someone, he fell to the floor, rolled around, and ended up gnawing on the edge of the carpet. The aids ushered everyone out of the room, closed the door, and waited till he eventually came out, apparently unaware of anything unusual.
I don't believe that. Hitler's speech style grew out of his mania. He could basically not stop himself from venting like that. The text of his speeches is awful: full of purple prose, mixed metaphores, repetitions, and incoherent logic.
You have just described the content of every U.S. presidential campaign speech, debate, address to congress, fireside chat, and state of the nation for the entire 20th century.
This wasn't a choice for political purposes. He couldn't concentrate to sit down and write. He had to dictate his book to Hess, and they had a hard time talking him out of his original title: "Four and a Half Years of Struggle Against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice." Hitler couldn't understand why that wasn't a perfectly good title.
 
6,171
1,275
Bystander, I think what I am hearing you say is that you don't want to consider the possibility that he was seriously nuts. I can understand that because it leads to the questions of responsibility. My reasoning goes in a different direction: if people had only had the savvy to recognise that he was nuts at the start, they would never have let him get anywhere.
 
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
zoobyshoe said:
ISo, after a point you would find the average Chinese person spouting rabid anti-capitalist jargon, in order not to be taken away and executed, just as the average German learned to vilify Jews and give the Hitler salute when meeting a neighbor.
Not quite. For example, approximately 70% of German students were organized in the Nazi student organization PRIOR to Hitler's elevation to power.
That would probably be 70% of organized students (rather than the student total), but still an alarming fraction.
Furthermore, Hitler won by democratic measures (about 35% in the last 1933 election, I think) and was a widely popular leader.

Taken in conjunction with that Hitler's anti-Jew rhetoric was practically unchanged from the 1920's to 1945, and that his advocated measures towards Jews were unambiguous from early on, this makes the Nazi case very unique, not to mention highly shaming for the majority of Germans living in the 1930's.

They KNEW what Hitler was doing, and applauded it.
 
Last edited:
6,171
1,275
arildno said:
Not quite. For example, approximately 70% of German students were organized in the Nazi student organization PRIOR to Hitler's elevation to power.
That would probably be 70% of organized students (rather than the student total), but still an alarming fraction.
I have no idea what this means. What are "organized" students?
Furthermore, Hitler won by democratic measures (about 35% in the last 1933 election, I think) and was a widely popular leader.
Well, Hitler never "won" any election untill he'd already been in power and begun taking things over behind the scenes. He was appointed chancellor as the result of some strange backroom wheeling and dealing wherein a great deal of pressure was put on Hindenberg to appoint him. Once appointed chancellor, he took advantage of the power that position gave him to take the government over from within. When Hindenberg died 8 months later, Hitler was able to just declare himself President as well as Chancellor. No one could stop him.
That's not to say the Nazi's weren't a large presence in politics before hand, but what that earned Hitler was not a democratic majority, rather, enough clout to be presented to Hindenberg as someone he should include in his Government to help unify the disparate factions.
I'm just trying to make it explicit that he never got into office by being elected.
Taken in conjunction with that Hitler's anti-Jew rhetoric was practically unchanged from the 1920's to 1945, and that his advocated measures towards Jews were unambiguous from early on, this makes the Nazi case very unique, not to mention highly shaming for the majority of Germans living in the 1930's.
They KNEW what Hitler was doing, and applauded it.
If I stipulate for the sake of argument 35% support for his anti-semetic stance, there are still a majority who aren't applauding. After his consolidation of power, however, everyone learned to sound like they'd supported him all along and could rattle off the party line about Jews in their sleep. If you didn't, you disappeared.
I'm getting my notions about this from this book:
Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0531056333/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Which is an incredible eye opener about how they took over every facet of Government even on the scale of small towns and made sure the average German was scared sh*tless of them.
 
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,131
1,145
zoobyshoe said:
Bystander, I think what I am hearing you say is that you don't want to consider the possibility that he was seriously nuts.
Ya dun thunk one step too far --- it's been considered, and pretty much dismissed. I'm not saying I've tracked down "smoking guns" for sources on all the stories.

I can understand that because it leads to the questions of responsibility.
Good point --- in that it illustrates that we've been discussing this in two different contexts --- get to that in a moment.

My reasoning goes in a different direction: if people had only had the savvy to recognise that he was nuts at the start, they would never have let him get anywhere.
Thomas Eagleburger (or is it 3 "e"s?) was the only certified sane candidate for an office a heartbeat away from becoming POTUS --- he got dropped like a hot potato in '72 when that fact became public.

Okay, contexts: I'll hypothesize that you analyze WW II within the context of Studs Terkel's Last Good War; we were the good guys, wore white hats, saved the world for democracy? Or, am I barking up the wrong tree? I'll stop here --- don't want to waste time developing my context if I've misread yours.
 
6,171
1,275
I just happened to catch a show on the History Channel about Hitler and his Dr. Morel.

They interviewed a Neurologist, Dr. Thomas Hutton, who said it's pretty certain Hitler had Parkinson's Disease. The first syptoms of this show up in 1934, and by 1944 he was completely unable to hide the symptoms, especially the noticable spasming of his left hand. They had a film of him where he was shaking hands with a line of people. Every once in a while his left hand, hanging at his side away from the camera, can be seen in the shot, and you can see these spasms.

Coincidently, in a separate piece of film, the side to side rocking shows up again.
They didn't call attention to the rocking on this program as they did on the other I saw, but laid out in detail the history of Morel giving Hitler methamphetamines. I wouldn't be surprised if that was behind this rocking.

In addition to Parkinson's and Methamphetamines, it looks like he probably also had syphilis. Morel wrote in his diary that he'd found the characteristic heart rhythm associated with coronary syphilis over and over. He did an EKG as well, on which this shows up. Later, when he was sure, he prepared a report about it and sent it to Himmler, the point being to warn him to be prepared that Hitler might soon not be able to govern anymore. He was in the tertiary stages and had all the final symptoms save fixity of gaze and confusion of speech. According to a woman they were also interviewing (didn't catch her name or profession) the very first sympotoms Hitler consulted Morel about, bouts of intense gastrointesinal pain and skin lesions on his legs, are also symptoms of syphilis.

Hitler, they say, did a 14 page rant against syphilis in Mein kampf, calling it a Jewish disease, and part of their plot to destroy the Aryan Race. The fact this particular disease seems to have been of special concern to him obviously suggests he knew, or at least, believed, he, himself had it, and had probably caught it from a Jewish prostitute. In any event, Morel recorded giving him shots of something iodide (didn't catch the whole name), which was the standard treatment for syphilis at that time.

The main problem it would have caused him at the stage he was at was the heart condition he had. The rhythm indicates that his aorta was forming an aneurism, and that his left ventricle was having to pump twice as hard as normal. That would explain the fatigue for which Morel was prescribing the meth.

They mentioned the arsenic that was in his "gas pills" but didn't suggest any symptoms that might have been adding to the mix.
 
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,131
1,145
Parkinson's? Interesting. Haven't run into that. Little tough to believe it can be diagnosed ten years prior to uncontrollable exhibition of symptoms just from film. Worth looking into, even if it is H. Ch. --- love it, but I've been having to keep 50 lb. salt blocks (like for livestock) handy when I tune in.

If Morel was treating him for syphilis, dollars to donuts it was calomel, or some other mercury regimen --- cure worse than disease --- that would also explain the shakes. "Hatter's disease" takes a few different turns as it develops, though.

Amphetamines? I have no idea how many flavors there are, nor what the history of their development, use, and abuse is; the speed freaks I've had the misfortune to be around I have to characterize as jumpy, twitchy, hypersensitive to any sound, to light, and generally unable to physically keep up with their nervous systems --- unable to finish a sentence because by the time the third word has left the lips, they've forgotten what they started to say, and can't sort through the twenty later sentences they've queued on the way to the tongue to recover it.
 
6,171
1,275
Here's a page of links about the Parkinson's:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Dr.+Thomas+Hutton+Hitler+Parkinsons&btnG=Google+Search

not that I've read them all.

The syphilis treatment was "something" iodide. They said it was the standard treatment at the time. Could be they meant in Europe at that time, or in Germany at that time. I don't think this was a mercury compound, and they didn't think this drug was causing any particular side effects. The importance of finding it in his diary it that it confirms Morel was sure Hitler had syphilis.

As for the meth, I don't really know anything about it outside of what they said. This was the first generation of it. Morel later switched to two more powerful versions as they were developed. This gives me the idea that original meth wasn't as powerful as what's common today.

They didn't trace his Parkinson's symptoms back to 34 by film. 1934 was the first mention they found of anyone noticing the tremble that later became impossible to hide. There is plenty of general mention of the tremble and leg dragging in the memoirs of the people around him. (I first read about it in Albert Speers first book.) The propaganda department screened all footage of him and if there were any more clear films of his trembling they were probably destroyed. They pointed out that when you can see his left hand in film from this later period, he is always holding it tightly with his right hand, or else holding something tightly in the left as a "cover" for the tremble.
 
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,131
1,145
Sorry to inflict this long a quote on you,
In a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association, a physician in Alabama describes a case of "syphilis" in which "his first Kahn test was found positive after a very thorough examination in which no physical defects of note were discovered." This man was treated uninterruptedly for three years by several physicians, with such harmless remedies as "neoarsphenamine," bismuth, arsphenamine sulphanate, mapharsen, yellow mercurous iodide, mercuric salicilate, mercury by inunction, potassium iodide by mouth potassium bismuth tartrate, iodobismtol and hyperpyrexia (fever) treatment."

After three years of such abuse his Kahn and Wasserrnann reactions remain positive. The young man, age 26, wants to get married and the physician asks what course should be taken. The doctor was told that the young man should not be allowed to marry and that further tests should be made.

This thing would be funny if it were not so tragic. This man had no symptoms of any trouble. The diagnosis of "syphilis" was made solely upon the result of a Kahn test. The test is known to every physician to be unreliable. The ...."​

from

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020134syphilis/020134syphilis-ch13.htm

Read the first page of links --- seems to be where all "the beef" is.

Actually ties in even earlier in H's life --- the critiques of his efforts at art include the words "inflexible, stiff, unimaginative," and others that don't come to mind at the moment; he was technically competent at the buildings, streets, and other regular geometric shapes and perspectives, but couldn't handle trees, and people were impossible for him.
 
6,171
1,275
Bystander said:
The diagnosis of "syphilis" was made solely upon the result of a Kahn test. The test is known to every physician to be unreliable.
The show explained that Hitlers blood was sent out for testing by Morel and came back negative for syphilis. An interviewee said that was basically meaningless since the test they administered was notorious for both false positives and false negatives. They put alot of stock in the particular heart rhythm problem he reported over and over again, though. Apparently that particular rhythm is exclusive to syphilis invading the heart muscle.

Read the first page of links --- seems to be where all "the beef" is.
Actually ties in even earlier in H's life --- the critiques of his efforts at art include the words "inflexible, stiff, unimaginative," and others that don't come to mind at the moment; he was technically competent at the buildings, streets, and other regular geometric shapes and perspectives, but couldn't handle trees, and people were impossible for him.
I'm not sure what to make of possible psychological manifestations. You look at Michael J. Fox whose symptoms were very extreme last time I saw him interviewed, and there's no indication it has affected his personality. Is that because they have him on some med to counteract this, or because these personality things aren't always natural concommitants? I can't say. I haven't read that much about Parkinson's. The last pope had Parkinson's and we don't hear stories to the effect he was inflexible, stiff, and unimaginative. On the other hand, Mao Tse Tung had it, and he fits right in with Hitler. Hard to know how to sort that out.
 
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,131
1,145
MJF getting senile? No, don't think so. The other two P.'s cases I know are/were neither one "rigid" in their thinking --- both enjoy(ed) working with the hands very much, so the disease is "maddening," in that sense. The "rigid thought" in the links is more a subjective evaluation of one generation by another if I had to bet --- "Ol' man's gettin' senile. Some one oughta put him out of our misery."

The art critiques were also pre-WW I, little early for P.'s to be showing up --- H. simply could not draw live things.

Inflexible commitments to strategies? IJN in WW II; Luetjens after sinking Hood.

Starting to see where some of my doubts about the "Freddy Kreugerizing" of H. are rooted?
 
flexijerkov
As far as I'm aware the thing Hitler personally and directly killed was his dogs whom he poisoned. Everyone else was killed by his Waffen SS or soldiers. Does anyone know any time he actually directly murdered anyone?
probably his niece Geli, he was banging her then she was found shot to death with his gun but he claimed it was a suicide
 
Evo
Mentor
22,880
2,376
This thread ended over 4 years ago. Closed.
 

Related Threads for: Did hitler personally kill anyone?

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
8K
Replies
26
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Top