In April 1945 Magda Goebbels stated “I do not want to live in a world without National Socialism.” She then poisoned herself and her 4 children. Hitler’s
suicide quickly followed. Hitler’s dog stayed at his side to the end. What was her
name?
Blondi.
Didn’t even have to think for a moment. Actually, AH took her with him by testing the capsules on her — and in both sets of suicides, the alternatives would have been much worse than ‘living in a world without national socialism’, which reason Blondi never publicly subscribed to.
Blondi. Earlier, in the '20s/'30s, he had another dog named Prinz.
Blondi, who had just had a litter of puppies (six, I believe), was poisoned to verify the lethality of the potassium cyanide suicide capsules everyone had been issued. The pups were ultimately poisoned as well, just to make a clean Nazi sweep of things, I suppose.
After the deed was done, Hitler took a look inside the room and left without saying a word.
Hitler’s dog handler shot Blondi’s pups (and several other dogs belonging to bunker personnel, including Eva’s two dogs). They only gave cyanide to her as Hitler was very suspicious of the favoured suicide method of the SS; after Himmler’s betrayal he suspected plots everywhere, that the pills would render him unconscious for delivery into Russian hands in exchange for clemency for the betrayer. Nazis - they shoot puppies. If you needed any extra reasons to hate them.
And the Goebbels had six children, not four. Helga, Hildegard, Helmut, Holdine, Hedwig, and Heidrun. Magda Goebbels also had a son by her first husband, Harald, who survived the war.
Reading the question in a super-nitpicker mode?
Magda.
Paranoid that people are out to not get you = priceless.
I can be such a cynic, but I do hope the OP has merely misused the word ‘faux’.
I kept wondering about that too. At first I thought there was some sort of alternate Nazi timeline known only to an elite cadre of faux historians – made all the more confusing by the phrasing, “What was her name?” Magda… didn’t you just tell us, or does she have a different name in the alternate timeline? 
Maybe the OP meant “faux” as in “armchair”?
I feel guilty for saying this, but 
Same answer I was going to give, since the OP didn’t indicate the sex of the dog.
Hitler’s suicide preceded the Goebbels’ deaths. I also seem to recall reading that Joseph & Magda died by gunshot.
Do you know who else took their philosophy from faux historians?
Many thanks for all these serious replies.
I was not expecting this. The term “faux historian” is borrowed from
USENET. Read “armchair” historian. I was a member of GOOGLE GROUPS
which incorporated the USENET groups. My group was called
“alt.history.british” of which I was a member for about 5 years. The
main interest of the group (going by number of threads) was the history
of Britain up to the death of Richard III, the last king to lead his soldiers
into battle. His death was considered to be the end of Chivalry.
But another big topic for a time was the air war over England and Germany. There was crossposting on this from US military groups. Another
major topic was the Norse and Viking influence in Britain with data from
Danes, Norwegians, Swedes and a few Germans.
Crossposting introduced me to some great folks from Australia and Canada
as well. In the end a GOOGLE administrator told me I was no longer welcome
in Google Groups. The USENET component was dismantled.
Richard III wasn’t the last English or British king to lead his troops into battle. That honour normally goes to George II, King of Great Britain, who led his troops at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743.
There were also several other English kings who led their troops into battle, as well as two Kings of Scots.
[ul]
[li]Henry VII - Battle of Bosworth Field, 1485 (admittedly, he hadn’t been crowned, but the point of the battle was that he was asserting that he was the lawful King of England, not Richard III, a claim Henry made good at Bosworth, leading to him being a King of England who had led his troops in battle);[/li]
[li]James IV, King of Scots - died at the Battle of Flodden Field, 1513, the last British king to die in battle;[/li]
[li]Charles I - lead his troops at the Battle of Edgehill, 1642, the opening battle of the Civil War;[/li]
[li]William III - arrived with an invading army in England in 1688, prepared for battle, but battle was avoided when James II/VII fled for France; William and James eventually met in combat at the Battle of the Boyne, 1690, which William won, ending James’ hopes of returning to the throne;[/li]
[li]James II/VII - as above, led troops at the Battle of the Boyne; as with Bosworth, there were two Kings, each maintaining that he was the rightful King of England;[/li]
[li]George II, King of Great Britain - Battle of Dettingen, 1743.[/li][/ul]
oops, missed the edit window; forgot to include:
[ul]
[li]Charles II - led his troops at the Battle of Worcester, 1651[/li][/ul]
Of course, the Parliamentarians under Cromwell would have asserted that Charles was not King of England, but the Royalists asserted that he became King the moment his father’s head was cut off in 1649; upon the Restoration in 1660, his reign was dated to have begun in 1649, and all Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament were deemed null and void. In any event, once he became King, he was a King who had led troops into battle, same as Henry VII.
Then USENET used it incorrectly. Faux means “has the appearance, but is definitely not.”
Armchair historian means someone who is a not really a historian but is well read enough to get basic stuff right but can be unreliable with more detailed or controversial issues.
You wanted “history buffs.”
Yeah, I’d be careful on the use of the term ‘faux historian,’ faux is the French word for ‘false.’ If you google the phrase faux historian, the first page is articles on “faux historian David Barton exposed as a fraud” and oddly, this thread.
That poor deluded woman. With her prediliction for the letter aitch it seems she was doomed to end up at Adolph’s beck and call.
SD threads show up on Google almost immediately. Most likely Google has this board listed as a high priority to index due to the reliability of this board to answer common and uncommon questions quite well.
Or it’s because you’re logged into Google and it knows that you visit the site often. Different people get different results.