Was Hitler really smart?

Doggone! I tried this but it didn’t show up correctly when I hit “Preview Post”.

Let me try again:

The disgusting fettish that is very rare is for a man to lie on the floor and have a woman squat over top of him and either urinate or defecate on his body. I have heard of this being done on top of his chest or even on top of his face.

In Hitler’s case, I seem to recall it was urination. I don’t know how or why such a fetish would develop. Most fetishes, as I understand, find their root cause in some childhood sexual event. But I can’t imagine how this fetish would ever develope.

I will try to Google “Hitler urinate fetish” and see what I can find.

OK. Bingo! Here we go. Look under “History” and you will find exactly what I mean.

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

OK. It works now. So I will post it here. I found it and have posted a link to Wikipedia.

If you choose to look at this spoiler and see what Hitler’s disgusting sexual fetish is purported to be, I think it could easily be the cause of deep-seated shame and could easily be the cause of his self-destructive tendencies.

Also, I want to thank “Attack from the 3rd dimension” and Boyo Jim. Yes. My reluctance was about the fear of violating board rules.

Glancing through John Toland’s biography of Hitler “in the last quarter of the school year 1897-98 he had twelve 1’s, the highest grade” (p.12). Toland also mentions that in 1900 Hitler had already live in more places than many of his classmates would visit in thir lives and they saw he as a man of the world. He read the adventure stories of James Fenimore Cooper and his German imitator, Karl May. After the death of his father in 1903 “the desultory school year ended with a failure in mathematics” (p.17). Hitler’s French teacher Professor Humer had mixed feelings about young Adolf “Hr had definite talent, though in a narrow field. But he lacked self-discipline, being notoriously cantankerous, wilful, arrogant and irascible. He had obvious difficulty fitting in at school. Moreover he was lazy; otherwise, with his gifts, he would have done much better. In freehand sketching his style was fluent and he did well in scientific studies. But his enthusiasm for hard work evaporated all too quickly.” (p.18). Hitler ended failing French and his makeup exam was given a passing mark on the condition he not return to the Linz school for the Final Form.

At age 15 he went to school in Steyr, 25 miles away. He detested the town and family he stayed with and his grades suffered, being “excellent” in gymnastics, “good” in freehand drawing but only "adequate in his two favorite subjects, history and geography and failing mathematics and German.
I think in general Hitler had a quick mind and he could pick up facts fast. He had some good points early in WWII because he had fought in the trenches for four years and there are worse ways to learn how armies work. He probably could size up people quickly unlike his opponents like Neville Chamberlain who never understood what Hitler was. His successes early in the war (his generals thought France would be harder to defeat than Russia) intimidated opponents since Hitler could point out “You said I was wrong to attack through the Ardennes and you were wrong”. But ultimately I don’t think he ever had a long term strategic plan. It’s also one of those things you wonder about how much the Holocaust detracted from the war effort by murdering 6 million people who could have helped the war effort as soldiers or factory workers, not to mention treating people of Eastern Europe as enemies instead of using them to fight against the Soviet Union.

I think you make some excellent points.

I always thought that some of the key reasons Germany lost the war were:

  1. The insane decision to fight the Soviet Union on a second front.

  2. The insane decision to switch from bombing the British air fields to bombing London instead. I think they might have actually stood a chance of defeating England had they continued to knock out the British airfields.

  3. The prohibition of any commander from bringing “bad news” to a senior commander. Germany fought its war in a “fantasy state” - acknowledging only its successes and pretending its failures never ocurred.

  4. The corruption of the party structure. In The Sopranos, I recall a saying that went something like this, “Money flows uphill and Crap flows downhill”. It was similar with the Nazi party. Do you have any idea how much personal wealth Goerring amassed for himself? And so far as I know, he never even wound up seeing or using any of the many fabulous pieces of art and wine and liquor that he amassed.

  5. The failure to realize the effect of the longterm production facililties of the USA and USSR vs Germany and Japan. Even the Japs realized that they stood absolutely no chance in the long term picture. Their only hope was to make a short term strike and hope the US would sue for peace. One of my most favorite parts of the story of WW2 was that after the Battle of Midway, the Japs never again built any aircraft carriers and the USA just built whole bunches of newer and newer classes of aircraft carriers. The Japs never again made any advances and the US never again made any retreats or lost any of it’s possesions. Apparantly, Yamamoto realized all of this would happen if they failed to follow up after Pearl Harbor. But this was something the Nazis never seemed to publicly acknowledge. Some of them may have realized this. But they were forbidden from publicly stating this because Hitler would not tolerate hearing any “bad news” - he would only tolerate hearing “good news”.

I have often wondered just how much this cost the Nazis in terms of their war effort. I’d really like to know just how much of a difference this made. Supposing Hitler would have been willing to allow his commanders to report the honest truth - both good news and bad - how much of a difference would that have made to their war effort?

Hitler also had a “divide and conquer” style of management. He essentially kept all his subordinates competing against each other by giving them overlapping areas of authority. This did serve the purpose of keeping anyone from becoming powerful enough to challenge Hitler’s leadership but it also resulted in a lot of wasted effort.

For your future information, the word “coprophagia” is not forbidden on the SDMB. Though I suspect it doesn’t crop up all that often. Except maybe in threads about the New York Yankees.

I’m sure I’ve seen the word before, but I’d forgotten there was such a… academic sounding word for a bizarre fetish. I wouldn’t have even thought to look for one. I would just have posted, “Hitler liked women to shit on him. Literally.”

As a statement of fact, this kind of language is also allowed. The moderators do get quite upset, however, if you start using obscenites in reference to other posters.

hm, we have immense threads about popping zits, pan frying sperm, feeding sperm to fish …

I am not sure it is possible to gross the board out …

I’ve been corrected via PM. Coprophile is more correct, but even that is only about feces. Urolagnia is urine. I’m not sure if there’s a word for both; I’m not sure I want to know if there is.

Can I interest you instead in a thread about pan-fried semen? :cool:

I just searched and 64 threads came up. So like once every two months. I didn’t analyze them to see how many were about the Yankees.

I’ve heard about that fetish before. He’s also been called a latent homosexual, too. (I don’t buy the latter.) I wasn’t sure if it was post-war propaganda stuff written to make Hitler seem more bad than he really was. There is a psychological need to demonize the enemy. In Hitler’s case, the truth should have been sufficient to make clear that the man was not one to be idolised or adopted as a role model.

Is the fetish claim credible?

Yes, after the Fall of France, I can see how Hitler would be regarded as a genius…but what about Russia? After losing 600,000 men at Stalingrad, what did the German generals think?
If I were part of thge GS, I would have been thinking about how to get rid of the guy.

If you use a bomb in a briefcase, include both packages of explosives.

From what people are saying it seems there is evidence he was a naturally intelligent guy but he didn’t have a lot of formal education past grammar school. The problem was his leadership style and narcissism led him to dismiss advisers and force some stupid military blunders. The big one that comes to my mind was his refusal to let Rommel determine strategy in North Africa and his basically quarterbacking the war from Berlin - while being in the “fantasy state” Joanie mentioned.

He suffered from hysterical blindness after WWI, and was treated by a psychologist. I’m thinking that this would be considered PTSD today, and was brought on by what he experienced in the war, so it’s not the same as just being crazy. But nonetheless I would say that is a serious mental problem.

No, his overall goal was the destruction of the nations of Poland and Russia (and the Jews), and the creation of a continental German Empire on their bones.

He was addicted to amphetamines from 1942 to his death.

From Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, by Paul Johnson, Chapter 10, “The End of Old Europe”:

Same book, Chapter 11, “The Watershed Year”:

Pride goeth.

So true. I would have bet money that the Fuhrer’s fetish was “snowballing”.

If that is true, then:

  1. why did he order his General Rommel to “fight to the last man” in N. Africa?
  2. why did he order his General Pauling to “fight to the last man” in Stalingrad?
  3. why did he order his demolition teams to destroy Paris when they retreated back to Germany?

In the first two cases, both generals refused to follow his orders. They recognized those orders for what they were (mass suicide) and they refused to participate.

There are several other examples that I can’t quite remember off the top of my head. If anyone else can help, I would appreciate if you would join in and post any other examples of Hitler’s decisions that were self-destructive.

I understand that he wanted to defeat and occupy Russia because it had so much “living space” (not to mention the oil wells in Romania). But, I never t heard that he wanted to **destroy **Russia exactly - just that he wanted to destroy the Russian people (perhaps by forcing many of them to work as slaves) and then populate Russia with Aryans.

But I have never heard of him having any desire to destroy Poland or the Polish people. This is something new to me. Can you explain why he wanted to destroy Poland and/or the Polish people? If it was because he considered the Poles to be sub-humans, I believe he considered many, many countries to be populated by sub-humans. Why would he direct any more hatred towards Poland than he would towards many of the other countries populated by non-Aryans?