Fair enough

That said, I find it hard to believe that any kid would go 'I want to be like Hitler' but millions did so who knows...

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

HitleR himself said he had to concentrate all his effort to making Germany the Greatest nation once again. Also he said that he could not marry because this would lessen his popularity which means he himself put some emphasis on the fact women liked him. I guess he also liked the life of being "free" to go and meet people, getting married would have made some restrictions to that. And he always had Eva waiting when he came home. Not a bad situation for mr Hitler, really. And you must remember that he loved his mother above all, so it is possible no other woman could take her mother´s place in his heart.

__________________

Both Hitler and Frederick the great had greater priorities than women. Too bad Peter III wasn't there for Hilter.

"The problem I had was with poster, "ctcarlisle" that called the OP "naive" and argued that Hitler would not have had access to women in his role as Fuhrer because women and men were more moral then than now...an argument which I find to be full of poppycock. It is obvious that the OP may be a younger poster and new to the field. I could see how he would assume that Hitler had access to hundreds of women during his time in power and could have conceived illegitimate children. If he is just beginning his study of Hitler, how would he know the fact that Hitler was asexual. The condescending tone of the post by "ctcarlisle" to the OP just struck a raw nerve."

You're wrong, Gross...I don't believe there were different "morals" those days compared to now, just as I don't beleive sex was any more uncommon than now. Different maybe, but every age has it's definition of that, that may be hard to understand, but that's life as they say. So, I know Hitler might have had "access" to women since he was a leader, a strong one at that (to them and in their opinion) and that in itself has a certain magnetism. Some might call it charisma, but again that's a subjective evaluation.

But the point I was making was this: the poster was making the parallel between Hitler in his surroundings at that time, to a current day 'rock star'. I can see how he would make that comparison seeing the reverence people give nowadays to, for example, rock stars. Funny he didn't make the connection between Hiltler and, say, JFK or any of the other people in the same positions of leaders-of-people. He probably didn't know JFK - but put any name there that you want...I may be wrong but his categorization told me his field of view was indeed narrow. Not his fault maybe, but still narrow.

So, OK he did so - and I called him naive. His analogy was simple, off-the-cuff, unresearched and unsubstantiated. I pointed out to him that "research" often starts out like that: an idea that is simple, dreamt-up and makes no sense - but that's when the informed start their testing of the theory, to see if it holds water so to speak. If along their way they find no contradiction to their theory then their hypothesis can become a theory and resist other testing for as long as it exists.

He might just as well have said: "the sky is green". I would have called him naive too...he might be colour-blind and actually see the sky as green but still his research (had he done any) would have convinced him he was colour-blind, and that the sky was actually a different colour than he saw. Same argument here: he made a statement based on what he knew then drew general conclusions not knowing the context. Doomed to fail. Easy questions like that deserve the fate they got: "go look it up! Then get back to us...we'll let you know."

One thing I can tell you: your own research is a better teacher than reading the answer in a book. I know. Been there done that...

Another point: at that time there were no such status as we currently accord to "rock-stars" therefore, there was no way people could compare that lifestyle to what they had. They were more worried about the fact that their nation was at war, was trying to dominate the free world and that at various stages of the war their cities and villages were being destroyed one by one. Maybe at the beginning of the war, women saw a great leader and wanted to bear his offspring - but, at best, that was a repressed feeling and one that might have a few followers but certainly not the norm amongst the people of the day.

Women didn't throw themselves on him. I understand he may not even have wanted them. But I put to you, Gross, that it was not "the thing to do" in those days. Think of the Vaterland...get back to work, build a strong family, support our beleaguered troops etc. Same as in Britain...Not "where can I get in line to show my myself off in a G-string as a ticket to the easy life"...LOL. They just had loftier goals as a whole. Eh, Gross?

Has anyone ever considered that Hitler would himself have frowned on an easy lay claiming that the rewards were not in relation to the effort. After all he had bigger ideals - and imprisoned for a lot less.

__________________

I was a bit surprised bu CTCarlisles answer, but it got more even as I read the following posts. As to the hints to my person, I`m a decent person aged 35 from Norway. I take it you are double my age and has a different view on things. Fair enough :-)

I`ve been to Germany 5-6 times and often think how great it must have been to be part of the "events" from early 30s. (Now, don`t misunderstand, as CTC migth do), bit I\m sure most of you understand what I mean. Ypur country is in the mud after ww1, and then the rise begins. And imagine how it was like for the officers, parties, rallies, parades, progress all over. And, like it or not, girls. My personal view is that Hitler must have been with many girls, or maybe CTC is right, Adolf (and the times) was different. But at least he had the opportunity.

Last thing, I must apologise to CTC and I`m going to read the instruction again, I thought it was ok to just post an idea to hear others answers, I wasnt aware that what you write here ought to be more "researched". having said that, I won`t dig deeper into the Hitler/Children-issue, its probably hidden in some private library in DDR.

No, I'm far from being twice your age... but I admit to having a decade or so on you. That doesn't make me a veteran, nor an expert in this area and therefore not qualified to speak on it but I do have the advantage of having both parents actively involved in the War effort between 1939 and 1945, with my dad having a long military career, inspite of just having graduated with a Law degree - so things didn't go exactly as he planned either.

So I am fortunate enough to remember the stories they told, of the friends they had in London, of the times they were rationed as a family. No food, no money, all work, no play, and people dying all around them. It was so different from what you and I know, today, that it was just that incredible. It must have been the same for you in Norway, with your parents' country being overrun by an aggressive nation to the South with different ideologies. Such a shame... Do you really think that Norwegian women threw themselves at this feet when he surveyed the ruins he had made of your countryside? I don't think so...

You know, about 50% of your and my time nowadays is spent on "entertainment"; whether it's sports, music, movies, TV, radio, computer games, computers for that matter, it's all 'entertainment' of some sorts. Well what do you think they did back in those days with the 50% of their time that we devote to this? OK, they had the odd radio broadcast but nothing like what we have. So the answer is just this: they spent their 50% on working, on helping others, on rebuilding, on finding enough to eat, on worrying about family and friends who were actually fighting, about wondering what Hilter plotted next for their country.

As did everyone...there weren't a group of people going to concerts while they worked, There weren't other TV channels out there they only they could not reach. There weren't computer technologies out there in some other country that they didn't have yet because they were at war. So there were no examples of something to yearn for something to miss. So people did what everyone else did: work hard, prepare food, fix the local bakery that had been bombed, attend community meetings for the Resistance, etc etc.

They didn't even think much of bearing children themselves let alone to Hiltler...no matter how many people adored him at home, my point was that people all felt more or less the same - no matter if they were in Oslo or Aachen...

I've been to Germany many times myself, I lived in Switzerland for 8 years so I feel 50% 'European' here in this bilingual North American city of ours. I grew up in a neutral country with 4 official languages where there is still military service for all men. I lived in England for 3 years. So I've heard people's stories who were really, really close to the action.

Hey, we're not as different as you might think. I too was fascinated byt he rise of Germany from the 1920's to Hitlers era of the 1940's. I collected German stamps a while back and I followed the history of that whole era with great enthusiasm...I still have the stamps of 1 million marks that were worth the price of a posting a letter. I admired Hitlers ability to capture the minds of the masses and make them do what most probably wouldn't have done. I also equated that with the "sheep" mentality of the day where you could get the people to do what you wanted because they were hungry. I still admire German engineering and love their work ethics - it's what made them a great nation.

My point remains that thiose days were different from today. No entertainment, therefore no admiration of entertainment heros. And perhaps a few thousand people wanted Hitler, millions didn't.

I don't want or need an apology from you. You have your views and you're entitled to them. My problem was with your transposing 21 century ideas to that era and not really trying to put yourself in their shoes. The women those days were older than their years, having had to grow up faster...they didn't remain mental teenagers the way some of the people do today.

Want to speak to someone who was there? Look up "sapper" in this forum and read his 30 pages of stories he lived through during the war. Ask him what people did in those days...he'd probably love to hear from you!

__________________

I can ask my Grandfather, he live in Sachsenhausen from april 42 till may 45 :-)

???

"I can ask my Grandfather, he live in Sachsenhausen from april 42 till may 45 :-)"

Wow...your grandfather lived in Sachsenhausen?

I hope I'm not being insensitive here but I do not understand what you are saying... 'Sachsenhausen' is, of course, famous for its concentration camp, just outside Berlin and when people say 'Sachsenhausen' it evokes in many just that: a "concentration camp". Are you saying your Grandfather was in a concentration camp from 1942 till April 1945?

Why I'm confused is that there is another 'Sachsenhausen' near Frankfurt. Did he 'live' there?

In either case, he had a very tough time during the period you mention. Like many other heavily-industrialised cities of the Main area, it was a target of British bombers during that time. There is no need to say anything more about the camp...

__________________

Hitler and women, and all this time I thought Hitler was gay?

__________________

Scott

Hilters children Mmm
PactOfSteel

__________________

Whatever you say man. Hitler wasn't a homosexual though, Eva Braun? they got married on the day he killed himself.

I wish I could say my opinions in Norwegian, especially as most of you are american/canadian and a wee bit "off" world life. He was a prisoner in Sachsenhausen KZ 42-45 north of Berlin.

I bet most of you are also members of:
Civil war 1850s
WW1 1914
Korea 50-53
Nam (as u cool guys say it 63-72)
Iraq, Afghanistan ++ )1990 and so on)

Good luck on your imperial planet far away from everything!

BUT THEY NEVER HAD SEX.

so what r u gonna say now?

__________________
If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons
- Winston Churchill

Kjellas

'Ein skal ikkje skjere alle over ein kam'

Eg finn kommentaren din fordummande og usmakelig. Slike Besserwisser kommentarar er ikkje ulike dei som din besterfars voktarar kom med.

PS Borgarkrigen i USA var i 1860 åra.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

Well, my Norwegian friend, I guess we'll lose you. Too bad, but I understand. I don't know what our friend told you in Norwegian. Perhaps I'll use one of those automatic programs to translate it for me. Also, I was sorry to hear of your Grandfathers stay in Sachsenhausen...I was hoping that you meant he has near the Frankfurt Sachsenhausen, but no. Tell me, is he alive and does he talk about it?

I was speaking with a Danish lady yesterday who spent the early years of the war in England. She recalls the countless hours they would spend sewing uniforms for the troops. I asked her about that and she said that indeed that was all there was to do most evenings (she was 18 in 1939) after they had spent most of the day in the volunteer nurses squads, helping the wounded. Whenever they had an evening off, they would try to read by candlelight, as they had 'blackout' conditions and no lights were allowed to be on. So, if they couldn't see, they would knit sweaters, blankets, mitts and baby clothes in a group of ladies around the same age 18-35. They became so good at knitting that they knit a sweater in the dark without having to look...

I asked about their "idols" of that time...'no such thing' she said, there were no movies, barely a newspaper, no radio because they had to share electricity, and barely enough money to spend for the gas heaters. Cost them a half-shilling every time. Lasted about an hour...But no idols...lots of small talk about day-to-day affairs, who had what to eat, whose children were they minding the next day, can anyone lend some milk, does anyone know where to find formula for the baby, or vegetables for the dinners. They would go out to a pub about every 2 weeks, with friends, for a drink or two, then back home at 9pm curfew. Wasn't fun by any definition..."duty" was all they aspired to. Money was very tight too, dresses had to last at least two years!

They were young too. The ones who were married were lucky to be able to live by themselves...no birth control, so sex was 'limited' and they abstained from sex voluntarily, both men and women, because of the fear of losing the child.

All that to say the times were quite different then...and, sure, they knew Hilter was a powerful man but I really doubt that many, even German women lived in such a world as you might be imagining.

__________________

ctcarlisle

Basically I read him the riot act. Sterotyping is the sort of thing that his grandfathers guards did.

The comment was distasteful, and oh yes the Civil war was not in the 1850ies.

People are allowed to have their opinion, but in Norway the PC madness is soon reaching feverpitch.

Young yobs who have done nowt but school are lecturing how bad the US and her chronies are.

I'm not going to apologise, but rather hang my head in shame. The politically indoctrinated yobs are growing by the minute.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942