Actually the allegation that Hitler supposedly had Syphilis has been dealt with by other researchers who have been more objective in their own studies of the question and who due to the more specialized knowledge they have on medical issues should be given full consideration.
For instance from the South African Medical Journal, a copy of which is available at the National Library of Medicine (An official website of the United States Government), the following abstract makes clear the that there is very little actual evidence that supports this urban legend.
______________
The evidence that Adolf Hitler might have suffered from incapacitating syphilis is reviewed. Rumors that he acquired syphilis from a prostitute at the age of 20 years, with possible re-infection during World War I, can no longer be verified. Evidence is that he was sexually rather inactive throughout his life. Suggestions that Hitler's cardiac lesion and complaints such as transitory blindness, tremor of his left arm and leg, recurring abdominal pain and a skin lesion of the leg were of syphilitic aetiology cannot be supported. Hitler's progressive mental and physical deterioration after 1942, his growing paranoia, fits of rage, grandiosity and symptoms of possible dementia would fit in neurosyphilis. There are, however, also other explanations for his terminal syndrome, and evidence that repeated clinical examinations did not show the characteristic signs of dementia paralytica or tabes dorsalis, swings the balance of probability away from tertiary syphilis.
Then there are critical reviews that note the weakness of the book you refer to as evidence, for instance the following observation about the chapter focused on Hitler is found by one reviewer as noted here, “The sprawling chapter on Hitler is the climax of the book but suffers from poor organization and loose writing.”
While in a professional level book review found contained the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, hosted at ResearchGate has observations that also should be noted at the following:
______________
She seems unaware of the problems of studying syphilis in the early modern period, foremost among them that the medical diagnosis of "syphilis" did not exist at the time. Furthermore, she takes sixteenth-century statements about the disease literally, rather than examining the cultural context of disease and health. Instead of explaining that Europeans associated Jews and prostitutes with disease in general, she refers to reports about Jews bringing typhus and about prostitutes in Naples spreading syphilis as simple observations. Finally, she cites only English-language scholarship, virtually all secondary sources—a serious limitation for a book that focuses primarily on continental Europe. As a history of syphilis and an introduction to the disease her book is a step backward, for it ignores the complexities of interpretation and presents myths and assertions as facts. The heart of the book is part 2 on the nineteenth century, since the original impetus for Hayden's research came from reading about Nietzsche's struggles with syphilis. Her approach is biographical, with separate chapters devoted to an assortment of famous people, from Franz Schubert to Abraham Lincoln to Vincent van Gogh—the common thread being the possibility of their having been infected with syphilis. To her credit, she does acknowledge the difficulty of providing a retrospective diagnosis of syphilis. Difficulties aside, however, she then proceeds to provide medical histories of each individual, concluding always that syphilis was at least a possible diagnosis. The result is a series of banal miniportraits, in which the subject's creativity and reactions disappear behind the medical diagnosis. Although Hayden acknowledges that syphilis alone does not explain the art and literature created by these individuals, her refusal to place her subjects in a broader context creates the impression that syphilis was the only influence on their lives.
For myself my own studies have yielded a significantly different perspective than most other typical perspectives. In order to best explain my understanding of Hitler, in particular about the topic under discussion I strongly suggest reading, Eva Braun: Life With Hitler by Heike B. Gortemaker and then do a contrasting reading of, The Hidden Hitler by Lothar Machtan. Having done so myself, more than once I might add, it has become clear to me that Hitler was not a sexually active individual and that his actual sexual orientation is as Matchtan, commandingly and compellingly demonstrates with his objective research, is that his conclusion that Hitler was at the very least Homo-erotically inclined is well evidenced, and when contrasted with Gortemaker’s most excellent and supreme historical social study of Eva Braun and the part she commands in history as being, perhaps, Hitler’s most trusted confidante, wherein Gortemaker simply cannot and does not discuss or deal directly with the question of Hitler’s sexuality, provides a stunning contrast to Machtan’s own deep dive into the question.
I don't know the specifics, but given their history, it's understandable that certain writings, signs, banners, insignia, and demonstrations supporting Naziism is illegal in Germany. Or so I've heard. And, just as you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, repeating racist tropes seem to incite violence eventually, and unAmerican as it may seem, I think people chanting "Jews will not replace us", carrying torches, is an example of incitement to violence, and should be illegal.
I believe you are correct with the application in Germany. They do have a past to deal with. The yell “fire” analogy is always a good one. Works in every country.
You can end up in Jail or fined for saying anything that the state deems Nazi Propaganda. And there are still right wing groups that adhere to the Nazi ideology, many are monitored by the BND , German version of the FBI CIA?
Its a very touchy subject for Germans and Austrians
There is no such thing as "Absolute Freedom." With regards to your question, that is a purely political matter, hence the establishment and ordering of freedoms is ultimately decided by whatever ruling polity creates them.
Robert, You are correct, Substack as a privately run publishing platform can limit, block, or in someway control free speech. It appears, from your research, assumptions and writings the ownership has chosen “control” by using (suspect of using) algorithms that keep those newsletters and posts separate. So profit motive wins out over principle. Another case of corporate “do as I say, but not as I do.”
It should be noted that some authors simultaneously publish on multiple platforms, for instance LinkedIn or Medium the same newsletter as published on Substack. (That’s how I found Robert Reich’s newsletter.). So what started on those platforms might find migration to Substack.
The freedom of speech issue must be taken in context. Can the government make illegal certain speech, say given in public on a street corner with all the proper permits? The First Amendment would suggest the answer would is “No”, so long as it does not incite the danger of imminent violence. Can a private company publishing platform limit free speech if the rules of speech and civility is spelled out in the fine print of the Terms and Conditions User Agreement? Yes. Don’t like it? Publish elsewhere. It’s much like shopping at Hobby Lobby - don’t agree with the religious dictates of ownership forced onto employees? Boycott and shop elsewhere.
Should Nazi propaganda and indoctrination be published at all or spoken freely? It’s all in context and how it’s used. As disgusting as it is. Thus the First Amendment is a two sided coin. Who decides what’s right and wrong? Back to the imminent danger of violence criteria. What a Democrat president, congress and judiciary decides is right, might be wrong four years later under Republican rule. We’re already seeing the effect of constitutional whiplash now with the current SC and tRump/ Federalist Society judges.
Yes, in the perfect world no one IMHO would or have the need for Nazi thought. But in my perfect world, there would be no wars fought over religion.
All the platforms have bot problems. I think there’s creepy algorithms that search out male writers/posters/commenters that then segregate the men by supposed age, likes, hobbies, occupation, etc. The bots always seem to have pretty (in a slimy sort of way) female head shots. I ignore/reject every single one, for fear of privacy invasion and computer viruses.
I have been studying the Nazi era for a little over twelve years now and so I have encountered a great many photos of the many individuals involved as they have been found in many different settings. As monstrous as all the Nazis were during their time here on Earth, the simple fact of the matter remains that they too were also human beings who lived life in much the same ways as most every other person living in modern civilized societies.
Humanizing the subjects of study is important, not for the purpose of justifying anything they did, but rather it is important in order to actually understand their motives and the reasoning, as distorted and evil as either of which might have been, to correctly discern the problems that led them to their conclusions and resultant actions.
I agree most heartedly! The greatest generation fought against nazism and I won’t forget them as an old school veteran. My uncles were part of that generation. They’re all gone now. And most have passed away by now. And remember the White Rose Society too. Ty for your article!
Actually the allegation that Hitler supposedly had Syphilis has been dealt with by other researchers who have been more objective in their own studies of the question and who due to the more specialized knowledge they have on medical issues should be given full consideration.
For instance from the South African Medical Journal, a copy of which is available at the National Library of Medicine (An official website of the United States Government), the following abstract makes clear the that there is very little actual evidence that supports this urban legend.
______________
The evidence that Adolf Hitler might have suffered from incapacitating syphilis is reviewed. Rumors that he acquired syphilis from a prostitute at the age of 20 years, with possible re-infection during World War I, can no longer be verified. Evidence is that he was sexually rather inactive throughout his life. Suggestions that Hitler's cardiac lesion and complaints such as transitory blindness, tremor of his left arm and leg, recurring abdominal pain and a skin lesion of the leg were of syphilitic aetiology cannot be supported. Hitler's progressive mental and physical deterioration after 1942, his growing paranoia, fits of rage, grandiosity and symptoms of possible dementia would fit in neurosyphilis. There are, however, also other explanations for his terminal syndrome, and evidence that repeated clinical examinations did not show the characteristic signs of dementia paralytica or tabes dorsalis, swings the balance of probability away from tertiary syphilis.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16341329/
______________
Then there are critical reviews that note the weakness of the book you refer to as evidence, for instance the following observation about the chapter focused on Hitler is found by one reviewer as noted here, “The sprawling chapter on Hitler is the climax of the book but suffers from poor organization and loose writing.”
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-465-02881-8
While in a professional level book review found contained the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, hosted at ResearchGate has observations that also should be noted at the following:
______________
She seems unaware of the problems of studying syphilis in the early modern period, foremost among them that the medical diagnosis of "syphilis" did not exist at the time. Furthermore, she takes sixteenth-century statements about the disease literally, rather than examining the cultural context of disease and health. Instead of explaining that Europeans associated Jews and prostitutes with disease in general, she refers to reports about Jews bringing typhus and about prostitutes in Naples spreading syphilis as simple observations. Finally, she cites only English-language scholarship, virtually all secondary sources—a serious limitation for a book that focuses primarily on continental Europe. As a history of syphilis and an introduction to the disease her book is a step backward, for it ignores the complexities of interpretation and presents myths and assertions as facts. The heart of the book is part 2 on the nineteenth century, since the original impetus for Hayden's research came from reading about Nietzsche's struggles with syphilis. Her approach is biographical, with separate chapters devoted to an assortment of famous people, from Franz Schubert to Abraham Lincoln to Vincent van Gogh—the common thread being the possibility of their having been infected with syphilis. To her credit, she does acknowledge the difficulty of providing a retrospective diagnosis of syphilis. Difficulties aside, however, she then proceeds to provide medical histories of each individual, concluding always that syphilis was at least a possible diagnosis. The result is a series of banal miniportraits, in which the subject's creativity and reactions disappear behind the medical diagnosis. Although Hayden acknowledges that syphilis alone does not explain the art and literature created by these individuals, her refusal to place her subjects in a broader context creates the impression that syphilis was the only influence on their lives.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246781796_Pox_Genius_Madness_and_the_Mysteries_of_Syphilis_review
________________
For myself my own studies have yielded a significantly different perspective than most other typical perspectives. In order to best explain my understanding of Hitler, in particular about the topic under discussion I strongly suggest reading, Eva Braun: Life With Hitler by Heike B. Gortemaker and then do a contrasting reading of, The Hidden Hitler by Lothar Machtan. Having done so myself, more than once I might add, it has become clear to me that Hitler was not a sexually active individual and that his actual sexual orientation is as Matchtan, commandingly and compellingly demonstrates with his objective research, is that his conclusion that Hitler was at the very least Homo-erotically inclined is well evidenced, and when contrasted with Gortemaker’s most excellent and supreme historical social study of Eva Braun and the part she commands in history as being, perhaps, Hitler’s most trusted confidante, wherein Gortemaker simply cannot and does not discuss or deal directly with the question of Hitler’s sexuality, provides a stunning contrast to Machtan’s own deep dive into the question.
Well written, Well Thought out.
Question Robert, what comes first?
Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Censor, Freedom To Publish and Profit from Peoples Writings
The word Freedom is used so often these days, I'm wondering is there any such thing as an Absolute Freedom.
I don't know the specifics, but given their history, it's understandable that certain writings, signs, banners, insignia, and demonstrations supporting Naziism is illegal in Germany. Or so I've heard. And, just as you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, repeating racist tropes seem to incite violence eventually, and unAmerican as it may seem, I think people chanting "Jews will not replace us", carrying torches, is an example of incitement to violence, and should be illegal.
I believe you are correct with the application in Germany. They do have a past to deal with. The yell “fire” analogy is always a good one. Works in every country.
And who regulates this intolerance?
Who do you trust to enforce the laws.
My wife's has family in both Germany and Austria.
You can end up in Jail or fined for saying anything that the state deems Nazi Propaganda. And there are still right wing groups that adhere to the Nazi ideology, many are monitored by the BND , German version of the FBI CIA?
Its a very touchy subject for Germans and Austrians
There is no such thing as "Absolute Freedom." With regards to your question, that is a purely political matter, hence the establishment and ordering of freedoms is ultimately decided by whatever ruling polity creates them.
Robert, Once again Thank you, I think many people seem to think that Freedom is Absolute,
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to spread racism and hatred online.
Robert, You are correct, Substack as a privately run publishing platform can limit, block, or in someway control free speech. It appears, from your research, assumptions and writings the ownership has chosen “control” by using (suspect of using) algorithms that keep those newsletters and posts separate. So profit motive wins out over principle. Another case of corporate “do as I say, but not as I do.”
It should be noted that some authors simultaneously publish on multiple platforms, for instance LinkedIn or Medium the same newsletter as published on Substack. (That’s how I found Robert Reich’s newsletter.). So what started on those platforms might find migration to Substack.
The freedom of speech issue must be taken in context. Can the government make illegal certain speech, say given in public on a street corner with all the proper permits? The First Amendment would suggest the answer would is “No”, so long as it does not incite the danger of imminent violence. Can a private company publishing platform limit free speech if the rules of speech and civility is spelled out in the fine print of the Terms and Conditions User Agreement? Yes. Don’t like it? Publish elsewhere. It’s much like shopping at Hobby Lobby - don’t agree with the religious dictates of ownership forced onto employees? Boycott and shop elsewhere.
Should Nazi propaganda and indoctrination be published at all or spoken freely? It’s all in context and how it’s used. As disgusting as it is. Thus the First Amendment is a two sided coin. Who decides what’s right and wrong? Back to the imminent danger of violence criteria. What a Democrat president, congress and judiciary decides is right, might be wrong four years later under Republican rule. We’re already seeing the effect of constitutional whiplash now with the current SC and tRump/ Federalist Society judges.
Yes, in the perfect world no one IMHO would or have the need for Nazi thought. But in my perfect world, there would be no wars fought over religion.
Imagine (thank you John Lennon)
Michael,
This is the reason I left Tumblr.
If you love Photos and Photography, Art, Cooking, Recipes, Fashion, Cars.......
When you start getting girls looking for "dates" webcams, onlyfans sites, and low and behold hard core porn.
That took the fun and the beauty out of the site.
If I want porn I can go to google, they will direct me to lots off that.
All the platforms have bot problems. I think there’s creepy algorithms that search out male writers/posters/commenters that then segregate the men by supposed age, likes, hobbies, occupation, etc. The bots always seem to have pretty (in a slimy sort of way) female head shots. I ignore/reject every single one, for fear of privacy invasion and computer viruses.
I forgot mail order internet brides.
Uh huh
PS Robert, Where did you find all of those photos? Creepy stuff, making them all look so happy little family get together like stuff.
I have been studying the Nazi era for a little over twelve years now and so I have encountered a great many photos of the many individuals involved as they have been found in many different settings. As monstrous as all the Nazis were during their time here on Earth, the simple fact of the matter remains that they too were also human beings who lived life in much the same ways as most every other person living in modern civilized societies.
Humanizing the subjects of study is important, not for the purpose of justifying anything they did, but rather it is important in order to actually understand their motives and the reasoning, as distorted and evil as either of which might have been, to correctly discern the problems that led them to their conclusions and resultant actions.
It's evil to profit from hate.
I agree most heartedly! The greatest generation fought against nazism and I won’t forget them as an old school veteran. My uncles were part of that generation. They’re all gone now. And most have passed away by now. And remember the White Rose Society too. Ty for your article!
We won against Nazism then it’s our duty to do it now.0