***230′,’1′,’2011-06-10 20:10:54′,’2011-06-10 20:10:54′,’
Homosexual activists’ blood pressure hit the roof this week because Bryan Fischer said something like anyone who isn’t ignorant about Nazi history already knew: the Nazi Party was “Formed In A Gay Bar” By “Homosexual Thugs.” While that is a sensationalist way to put it, it has some truth to it.
Unfortunately 99.999999999% of the world population is either completely or just about completely ignorant about the role of homosexuals in Nazi Germany.
The adorable element in all of this, especially given the ridiculous drama queen outrage staged by homosexual activists concerning Fischer’s claims this week, is that the claims are in some ways true.
Unfortunately the MSM will not follow up on this fact, nor educate the public. It’s like the French omerta about how sexually violent French society is. Everyone must keep silent so that the truth doesn’t come out.
How can we now ignore the hidden history of sexual deviance so prevalent in Nazi and pre-
Nazi Germany? The present picture being offered by gay activists for public consumption-with
the ubiquitous “pink triangle” motif – fails to acknowledge this side of the story. Although some
homosexuals, and many of those who were framed with trumped-up charges of homosexuality,
suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis, for gay apologists to portray themselves as historical victims of Nazi persecution on par with the Jewish people is a gross distortion of history, perhaps equal to denying the Holocaust itself. In light of the preeminent role sexual deviance played in the rise of Nazi power and in Nazi crimes against humanity, how can homosexuals today cast themselves or be cast as prime “victims” of Naziism? Indeed, if history is to be told accurately,
the behavior of homosexuals under Hitler’s barbarous rule provides further evidence that homosexuality is a pathology. How then can human rights groups, politicians, academics, and the media be so totally ignorant of the epidemic proportions of sexual deviance which prevailed amongst the Nazis? Ironically, the record shows that there was far more brutality, rape, torture and murder committed against innocent people by Nazi deviants and homosexuals than there ever was against homosexuals.
Historian Frank Rector records that the German Workers Party-the forerunner to Hitler’s Nazi Party-“was founded at a gay bar in Munich, called the Bratworstglockl.”(4)
Jonathan Katz, a gay Holocaust historian, writes, “most, if not all, of its founding members were either
homosexuals or bisexuals.” Katz writes that “the founders of the party were also founders of the
`Bund fur Menschenrecht’ (The Society for Human Rights), the largest homosexual rights organization in Germany at the time.”(5) The major distinction between Hirschfeld’s Institute and the `Bund’ was that Hirschfeld’s following was largely made up of effeminate, passive antipedophile adherents, while the Bund was comprised of butch or masculo-homosexuals who were pro-pedophile.
On May 6, 1933, Nazi Party Stormtroopers attacked and totally destroyed Hirschfeld’s Institute.(6) Ludwig L. Lenz, a gynecologist who worked there at the time, writes, “our Institute was used by members of every political party. We had a great many Nazis under treatment at the Institute.” Lenz wrote of the real reason for the destruction: “the answer is simple, we knew too much; one thing is certain, not ten percent of those men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal. Our knowledge of intimate secrets regarding members of the Nazi Party and our other documentary material-we possessed about forty thousand confessions and biographical letters-was the cause of me destruction of the Institute for Sexology.”(7)
Historian of record William L. Shurer writes, Roehm “was a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar-faced professional soldier-a tough, ruthless, driving man – albeit, like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual-he helped to organize the first Nazi strong-arm squads which grew into the S.A., the army of storm troopers which he commanded until his execution by Hitler in 1934.”(11)
Louis L. Snyder writes, “what was needed, Roehm believed, was a proud, arrogant lot who could brawl, smash windows and kill for the hell of it. Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practising homosexuals. No closets for them. Good citizenship in the Bourgeois sense, be damned, up with homosexuality.”(16)
Roehm’s eventual comrade Rossbach was, according to historian Nigel Jones, a “sadist, murderer, and homosexual, [and] one of the most admired heroes of post 1919 German youth.” “In Rossbach,” says a popular book on the youth movement, “we see the Fuhrer of our youth idolized and honored as can only happen in a time when `the personality of an individual counts for everything.’”(12) `Freebooter’ (armed bands of uprooted men Freikorps, Free Corps) commanders didn’t forget the trust placed in them by German youth. They understood the valuable role youth could play in resurgent, racist nationalism. Roehm enrolled hundreds into the S .A. Stormtroopers and historian Frank Rector records that, “the Hitler youth was so rampantly homosexuality that it became known among the German populace as the Homo Youth.”(13)
Edmund Heines brought his Bavarian Rossbach-organization and Schill-Jugend (youth group), the original `Brownshirts,’ into the S.A. in Munich in 1923. Heiden reports that, “Lieutenant Rossbach’s troop, notorious for its homosexuality, spent its time brawling, smashing windows and shedding blood. Heines belonged to Rossbach’s organization before joining Hitler; then Rossbach and Heines formed a center with Roehm which took over and led the S.A.”(24)
The gay and bisexual officer corps of the S.A. became the Sicherheitsdienst (S.D.), organized by Reinhard Heydrich, Himmler’s second in command. It was this branch of the SS security Service that controlled the concentration camps. Of the three SS divisions the Sicherheitsdienst division was the most sadistic. Whenever the murder of innocent masses of Jews, Poles or captured allied prisoners was portrayed in the movies, it would have been the Sicherheitsdienst division, the `butch’ homosexuals, who were responsible.
But it couldn’t have been Roehm’s homosexuality that Hitler found objectionable. Progay writer Frank Rector records, “Hitler Youth Leader Baldur von Schirach was bisexual, Hitler’s private attorney, Reich Legal Director and Minister of Justice Hans Frank was homosexual, Hitler’s adjutant Wilhelm Bruckner was bisexual, Deputy Feuhrer Rudolf Hess was bisexual and Reich Minister of Economics Walther Funk was homosexual.”(46)
The Other Side of the Pink Triangle
By: Kevin E. Abrams
(Originally published in the Lambda Report, August 1994)
Judith Reisman – The Pink Swastika as Holocaust Revisionist History:
The infamous German Jewish homosexual sex “scientist” Magnus Hirshfeld reported that roughly 20,000 boys and youths 6 were prostituted to Germany’s flourishing “gay” population. The British, qua-American homosexual icon, Christopher Isherwood blissfully said of Berlin’s 1920’s boy brothels, “Berlin is for boys…The German Boy….the Blond”).7
“Only the Real, the True, the Masculine Held Its Value”: Ernst Röhm, Masculinity, and Male Homosexuality
Journal of the History of Sexuality – Vol. 8, No. 4, Apr., 1998
Rohm had joined the BMR, led by the publisher Friedrich Radszuweit. The BMR was one of the three main German homosexual rights movements and claimed forty-eight thousand members. … Radszuweit’s political sympathies were volkisch and by 1932 the BMR was adopting anti-Semitic attitudes.
… The BMR emphasized the normality of homosexual life and love. …
Rohm usually identified himself as a homosexual, although he described himself as bisexual in some police interrogations.
In the mid 1920s, Rohm was as out as he could be without openly proclaiming his homosexuality. His family chose not to recognize his homosexuality. …
[After coming back from Bolivia in 1931, at Hitler’s request to take up the new position of SA Chief of Staff. Rohm then got deeply involved in politics.]
During 1931 and 1932, up to five unsuccessful court proceedings were launched against Rohm for offenses under prg 175, and in the course of this, the prosecuting authorities seized the Rohm-Heimsoth letters [and which were soon published]. … While leading Nazis feared their publication would have a catastrophic effect on their electoral support, this was not the case. [They received even more votes than before in the next elections] …
[It is clear that Rohm’s Nazi colleagues knew of his homosexuality as early as 1925. Throughout all these years, when Rohm was politically attacked because of homosexuality, Hitler systematically stood up to defend him and refused to dismiss him. ]
… Concerned at what they saw as continuing political damage over the issue and frustrated at Hitler’s refusal to dismiss Rohm, some Nazis tried to remove Rohm by assassination in March 1932. [The plot failed because of a whistle blower.] … Repeated attempts to get Hitler to break with Rohm were met by the response that Hitler “stood, and fell, with Rohm.”
… Politically active homosexuals were persecuted and imprisoned for their political activism but were not singled out because of their homosexuality. …
It was not after Rohm’s murder that the provisions of prg 175 were strengthened, and persecution of male homosexuals as homosexuals began under Himmler’s influence.
Hitler “stood, and fell, with Rohm.” No wonder many historians have begun to seriously wonder and investigate if Hitler’s greatest secret was that he had always been in the closet himself. What is certainly, unquestionably clear is that Hitler cherished (loved?) his homosexual friend more than anyone else in the world. It’s hard to say which one of them was more sexually perverted in any case, independently if we consider that Hitler was heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual (I can see all three possibilities). But the unearthed documentation about that man which testified that he saw Hitler caught in bed with another man when he was younger (I need to find the reference for that), plus Hitler’s strong feelings for Rohm, keep adding up the clues that could turn out to be evidence of the Fuhrer’s homosexuality.
I have a long post on some main facts and myths concerning homosexuals in Nazi Germany. And on the separation of Church and State in Nazi Germany and how similar Nazi views were to modern day liberals on the issue.
Update August 6, 2011
Found the reference I said I was going to look for above. Here is the liberal take on the issue (Slate):
A new book claims Hitler was a closet case.
By Ron RosenbaumPosted Monday, Dec. 3, 2001, at 3:41 PM ET
When Hitler was on the rise, Mend’s stories were all about Hitler’s “brilliant traits of character … he was just the same in the field as he was today … courageous, fearless, outstanding.” Then, apparently because Hitler wouldn’t do enough to promote Mend’s book on their wartime camaraderie, Mend started threatening that he’d really tell the truth. A pattern of payoffs, abortive extortion, arrests, and ultimately imprisonment on child molesting charges followed for Mend (who eventually died in one of Hitler’s jails). Toward the latter stages of this blackmail war he supposedly produced the “Mend Protocol,” a long memorandum of his convoluted history with Hitler. Here’s its pallid “smoking gun”:
In 1915, we were billeted in the LeFebre brewery at Fournes. We slept in the hay. Hitler was bedded down at night with Schmidl, his male whore. We heard a rustling in the hay. Then someone switched on his electric flashlight and growled “Take a look at those two nancy boys.” I myself took no further interest in the matter.
Setting aside the ludicrous, lofty tone of the last sentence, that’s the best evidence for the “new revelation.” I find Machtan’s other evidence even less convincing. Machtan’s real contribution is not his dubious gay-Hitler thesis, but a deeper picture of the blackmail culture that surrounded Hitler (who himself used manufactured testimony to frame one of his recalcitrant generals as a homosexual).
Here is what seems to me as the result of having much, much more historical knowledge of the period, the characters and the events, a review by Stephen Cross:
Lothar Machtan Perseus Press, 2001 434 pp, 19-99 [pounds sterling] ISBN 1-903985-01-3
Adolf Hitler was his own best spin doctor. He readily modified reality to suit his providential mission. Even in private he had to conform to the image of the Fuhrer sold to the public. Uncovering and overturning the myth provides interesting challenges for historians, and recently Professor Lothar Machtan of Bremen University has claimed to have uncovered the lynchpin of Hitler’s psyche and career–homosexuality. His case seems so compelling. Hitler’s relationship with August Kubizek (1905-1908) was clearly more than platonic.
In 1913 he then moved from one gay suburb to another, this time in Munich. War came and a fellow comrade in the trenches, Hans Mend, later testified to a gay Lance Corporal Hitler romping in a non-combative way with his lover Ernst Schmidt. We are then invited to contemplate the ever-present threats to blackmail Hitler over his forbidden liaisons. Julius Schreck’s widow, Ernst `Putzi’ Hanfstaengl and Captain Rohm all had to be bought off, indulged or murdered. The Night of the Long Knives–the purge of 1934–takes on a new significance. Deputy Hess, chauffeurs Maurice and Schreck, Kurt Ludecke, Dietrich Eckart are all lovers. Even though the Third Reich persecuted homosexuality, the literary homosexual Erich Ebermayer and the artistic Hans Ziegler, who knew Hitler, survive! To cap it all, there are or were some secret Munich police: files unmasking the budding saviour of Germany as a rent-boy patron.
But why have historians missed this crucial piece of the Hitler jigsaw?
Professor Machtan has an answer for this: lack of interest. Even the most renowned and recent biographer, Professor Ian Kershaw, has proved far too obsessed with Hitler’s political life and thus neglected his personal life. This accumulation of `evidence’ for a homosexual inclination seems very persuasive, but is it? All the evidence is circumstantial. Even Machtan has to admit that no conclusive proof is extant. Surely, greeting Kubizek with kisses can be seen as nothing more than emotional enthusiasm. Indeed, who is not familiar with the common teenage propensity for wearing the same style of clothes? It is by no means a homosexual monopoly.
Machtan claims that Kubizek’s account of Hitler’s obsession with Stephanie in Linz smacks of overkill in its deliberate attempt to mislead. Yet where it suits his case Machtan can be quite credulous as with the so-called secret Munich police reports. The descriptions of Hitler by his male escorts seem much more likely to have been fabricated. Why should such a strident non-smoker as Hitler even contemplate rewarding a night companion with cigarettes? Maybe this tale served only to ensure Hitler’s identity since we are told the young man was not allowed to smoke in Hitler’s room. Then there is his unruly lock of hair …
The great problem with Machtan’s thesis is that his witnesses are virtually all unreliable.
Any experienced GCSE student would howl them off the examination paper. Soldier Hans Mend was an habitual petty criminal, Hanfstaengl, Ludecke and Rohm all had personal grievances. If blackmail ever took place it would be unsurprising and even inevitable given Hitler’s importance, bachelor status and perhaps naive association with a number of homosexuals, although l am not convinced about Hess. That Hitler could exert a charismatic attraction for gay men is not surprising but need not indicate anything more. Indeed, Nazism by its very nature, did involve much homo-erotic bonding.
Even the credibility of Machtan’s revelation about the secret police files is undermined. He cannot produce them. Ambassador Dollmann heard about them over dinner from General Otto von Lossow who betrayed Hitler in the Munich Putsch of 1923. They were sent abroad, according to Lossow, as insurance (which Hitler was informed of), yet later in the book Hitler is credited with attacking von Kahr (Lossow’s boss in 1923) in 1934 because he thought he was in possession of them! Historians like Kershaw and Burleigh have rejected the homosexual Hitler not because of a lack of interest or some political correctness but because the evidence is suspect. As a student of Hitler for over 30 years, I can firmly reject the assertion of a recent reviewer that Hitler’s personality generates little interest as ludicrous in the extreme.
The issue with all of these critiques is that they prove or disprove basically nothing.
“The great problem with Machtan’s thesis is that his witnesses are virtually all unreliable.”
The great problem with this issue from a historicity perspective is that the people involved are all dead. And they took just about all information on the issue to the grave with them. So, what does that mean that his witnesses are virtually all unreliable? Such a witness could completely lie, partially lie, or tell the truth and, for a lot of what they say, we have no way of knowing when it was truth, half-truth, distorted truth, or lie. People neither lie nor tell the truth all the time. A completely unreliable witness does, at times, tell the truth or a partial truth.
And this issue is further complicated by the fact that a person who does not describe reality correctly about a particular event or issue may not be purposefully lying all the time. Yes, there is intentional lying and then there is cognitive selection and other forms of fanaticism that completely deform a person’s capability of grasping certain aspects of reality, while they cannot be labeled “mentally ill” from a psychological perspective. It doesn’t mean their minds are functioning correctly, however. And the fact is that a great majority of people are not aware of how strong or how frequent cognitive selection and other phenomena that distort their understanding of reality happens on a daily basis. This is true both for the public at large, scholars, and historical “witnesses.”
Many of the conjectures above by Cross seem perfectly plausible to me, e.g., Hitler could have chosen to live or ended up living in several homosexual suburbs because of other reasons than having a homosexual problem himself. Hitler could exert a charismatic attraction for homosexual men without being a homosexual himself. The fact that Hitler could exert this homosexual charismatic attraction for homosexuals is not surprising at all, given how warped the minds of homosexual men are about men and masculinity, but, I agree, it need not indicate anything more about Hitler’s own sexuality.
In reference to all of Cross’ possible explanations above, the issue is, they are all plausible, but basically nothing proves them to be true either. That is, for example, Hitler could have chosen — and I need to get more info about this supposed “choice” — to live in homosexual suburbs because, while not being a homosexual, he was interested in art and bohemian life and homosexuality didn’t bother him or he could have chosen because he was a closeted bisexual or homosexual. Or maybe the rents were low and affordable. Or maybe… I mean, without more information, and with little scant verifiable information, it ends up as a conjecture exercise. And we know that conjecture exercises are filtered by ideological and political cognitive and scholarly filters.
“Professor Machtan has an answer for this: lack of interest.” Then: “As a student of Hitler for over 30 years, I can firmly reject the assertion of a recent reviewer that Hitler’s personality generates little interest as ludicrous in the extreme.”
I definitely agree with Cross that “lack of interest in Hitler” is not the issue. But selective attention might very well be one. Liberals (not only, but the case in point here) hate focusing attention on aspects of reality that contradict their political narratives and ideology. They will ignore or gloss over any information that they find unpleasant from a political perspective. Liberals can be, quite often, totally unreliable in reference to issues concerning sexual reality. There is their narrative and then there is their purposefully ignored reality. To many liberals, only the first really exists.
4. Rector, Frank, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals, New York: Stein and Day, 1981 :69.
5. Katz, Jonathan, Gay American History: Lesbian and Gay Men in the U.S.A., p.632n94. 6.
Haeberle, Erwin J., Hidden From History, Swastika, Pink Triangle, And Yellow Star: The
Destruction Of Sexology And The Persecution Of Homosexuals In Nazi Germany, New York: A
Meridian Book, 1989:368.
7. Ibid., p. 369.
11. Shirer, William L., The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Simon And Schuster, New York.
1960, p. 38.
12. Jones, Nigel, Hitler’s Heralds. The Story of the Freikorps, 1918-1923, pp. 124-125.
13. The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals, p. 52.
14. Heiden, Konrad, Der Fuehrer, Hitler’s Rise to Power. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston,
Riverside Press, Cambridge, 1944, pp. 294-295.
16. Snyder, Louis L., Hitler’s Elite. Biographical Sketches of Nazis Who Shaped The Third
24. Heiden, Konrad, Der Fuehrer, Hitler’s Rise to Power, p. 295.
45. Hitler’s Mistakes, Lewin, Ronald, & Leo Cooper in association with Secker & Warburg, p.
46. Rector, Frank, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals, p. 56.
Author’s recommended reading: Der Fuehrer by Konrad Heiden.
Located on the Internet on June 4, 2009 at http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitlerleftist/
‘,’Nazi homosexuals – how liberals try to rewrite history’,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’nazi-homosexuals-how-liberals-try-to-rewrite-history’,’ ‘,’ http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/bryan-fischer-nazi-party-formed-in-a-gay-bar-by-homosexual-thugs/news/2011/06/09/21741, http://www.slate.com/id/2059222/’,’2011-08-06 08:12:17′,’2011-08-06 08:12:17′,”,’0′,’http://socimages.blogsome.com/2011/06/10/nazi-homosexuals-how-liberals-try-to-rewrite-history/’,’0′)