The Big Three: the Catalysts for World War II

 Without 20/20 vision, we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past, instead of learning from the past to create a better future-Montesquieu's Table

I'm dividing this blog into two sections. It seems to me that it would be impossible for me to analyze this problem philosophically, without discussing its historical context first. Hopefully we'll recognize some of the same problems happening in the Middle East, genocide for example,  thanks to the radical Islamic group Isis. In fact, genocide is a real and present danger to us in the U.S, England, France, and globally if Isis succeeds. Examining the past is the first place to start when attempting to secure the
future. 

World War 2 History

 Most of us remember our  World War II history-six million Jews dead in the most heinous ways imaginable, Jews being forced to hide from the Nazis in every nook and cranny they could find, people who provided shelter for the Jews were also killed if they were found, and one man held the entire German population hostage, or should I say "the entire world?" It was a period of insanity that no one can fully explain or top...though Isis to coming pretty close. How could the land of the Weimar Republic and Goethe descend so low into sadism and ignorance? That's something you'd expect from third world extremists, not from a democratic superpower that is one of the two philosophical powerhouses in Europe (the other one is France).

World War I History

Of course, no one but the Nazis were responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews, in their genocidal efforts to bring Germany and Austria back to their former glory in the worst ways imaginable...that is clear. But could it be that someone else was responsible for their rise? That answer is yes, but the culprits go largely unnoticed. I mean, there aren't that many books written about their culpability, or at least none that I can think of at the top of my head. Usually it's the "good ole boys" story- the Allies defeat an evil foe in war, becoming everyone's favorite hero, and bringing pride to their countries, but no one is certain how it started, nor who to point the finger at. 

Perhaps we can examine that question a little bit. The march towards WWI started with the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand on the 28th of June, 1914 in Sarajevo, Serbia by the terrorist group "Black Hand." Yes, the murder of one man started it all. Austria reacted to his death by enlisting the help of Germany, then issuing Serbia an ultimatum on July 23 to bring the assassins to justice and halt the anti-Austrian hatred, or they'd mobilize their army. That is a sign that Austria felt the Serbian government was implicated in the assassination, and maybe they were. They expected Serbia to accept part of the ultimatum, but Serbia went directly to Russia, instead, for backing against the newly formed Austrian-German alliance, also known as the "Central Powers." Perhaps going to Russia not only confirms Austria's suspicion of their complicity, but also proves that the Serbian government wanted to  instigate a war against Austria who had territory that they wanted to free from Austro-Hungarian rule (frankly, that's very understandable).  On July 28, 1914, the Central Powers finally declared war on the Serbian-Russian alliance, which grew to include France and the United Kingdom, otherwise known as the "Allied Forces."

Russia had a very powerful military, of course, so the Central Powers decided against attacking them directly. Instead, they decided to open the war by enacting the Schlieffen Plan, and attacked France by going through Belgium (you see how this got worse by the minute). That officially brought Britain into the war. France then enacted their own plan, Plan XVII, and quickly mobilized against Germany. The Central Powers eventually moved South into France, and the Allied Forces moved in from the North. It was the United States' turn to join the war, but we had an isolationist policy, so they practically had to beg the U.S. to join the Allied Forces. The U.S. finally  relented on April 6th, 1917, creating a buffer when Russia exited that same year to work on an internal revolution to removed their czar. This is also when Germany's chances of winning the war diminishes. All of this eventually led to the bloody battle in the trenches in which Germany launched thousands of shells filled with chlorine to weaken or kill their enemies (though France was the first to introduce chemical warfare into the war with 26 mm grenades filled with tear gas). And this had the desired affect the Germans were looking for, as it injured many of the Allied soldiers' eyes, throat, and lungs, if they weren't killed by asphyxiation. The entire war lasted four years from 1914 through 1918, and accumulated a 

grand total of 37,466,904 casualties (8,528, 831 deaths alone).

Photo from Mountain View Mirror

The Treaty of Versailles

But the question remains, who was ultimately responsible for starting the first world war? Was it the Central Powers and their hasty move into war or the Black Hand who assassinated Austria's archduke?  It doesn't matter, because the Central Powers were forced to take full responsibility for starting the war. But even that was not enough to give rise to the Nazi party...it was the creation of  the ill-conceived diktat, the Treaty of Versailles, which was created without consulting Germany or Austria, and was fueled by destructive revenge to bring Germany to its knees, especially on the part of France who really didn't care if it turned Germany into a third world country or not.

While this was partly warranted because of the casualties and devastation the Central Powers left behind, the three people who drafted the document-Prime Minister David Lloyd George of Great Britain; who recognized the unfairness of the treaty but caved in to public pressure, Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau of France; the most radical of the treaty signers who wanted to both punish Germany and prevent it from starting another war against France, and President Woodrow Wilson of the United States; who wasn't allowed to implement his fair 14 Points Peace Plan, were unwittingly catalysts to even bigger problems. In fact, with their pens, the Big Three completely changed history because without the Treaty of Versailles, the Nazis wouldn't have risen to power, World War 2 wouldn't happen, 6 million Jews would have still been alive, communism wouldn't have grown, the Soviets wouldn't have been in power in Russia, there wouldn't have been a Soviet Block, and there wouldn't have been a Cold War. Such was the environment they helped create in Germany and Austria, that allowed all those events to occur.  

As for reparations in the treaty, they divided them into four categories- territorial, military, financial, and general:

Territory

 As far as territory was concerned, twelve territories and their populations were given to the Allied Powers. Alsace-Lorraine, for example, was to be given to France (that must have hurt), Eupen and Malmedy was given to Belgium, Northern Schleswig was given to Denmark, Hultschin was given to Czechoslovakia, the list goes on-Germany was lucky that it was still one country. They even overreached and took Germany's colonial possessions, so German citizens who had nothing to do with the war because they lived thousands of miles away in distant countries like Africa, China, and German Samoa, had to surrender their countries and businesses to the League of Nations, which basically is equivalent to England and France who already had a monopoly on colonial territory. 

Military

Germany and Austria had to reduced their military to 100, 000 men. They were not allowed tanks, an air force, submarines, but they were allowed to keep 6 capital naval ships...out of generosity I'm sure (the Germans sunk those in retaliation for being forced to turn over their entire Navy). And of course there were the demilitarized zones, which were located west of the Rhineland and 50 kilometers east of the Rhine River. God forbid if they had to defend themselves in the future...they were equivalent to defenseless, which is just what France liked, because in their faulty logic Germany would be unable to start another war (that theory worked out real well, didn't it...). And the threesome felt they were armed enough to ward off communism, which was perhaps unrealistic. In the colonies, they didn't have enough military power to fend off the Allies from taking their countries, especially since Germany's military was reduced significantly. But that wasn't enough for the Big Three- the German colonial people throughout the world were interned for four to five years. That is, they were prisoners of war for no fault of their own. Fathers couldn't see their wives or children, who had to grow up without them, and families were displaced.

Financial

As far as the financial aspect of the treaty was concerned, Germany had to give The Big Three a blank check...to be cashed at a later date when they decided how much all the devastation cost, and they weren't going dutch. They eventually decided that the entire war, structural damage included, cost 186.3 billion dollars, which is an astronomically price especially in the early 1900s, and far beyond Germany's means to repay.  The loss of industrial territory and probably the overseas plantations, hampered Germany's ability to revitalize their economies. The Big Three even prevented Germany and Austria from uniting as a super-state, which would have increased their economic potential, should have decided to have a modest standard of living in future.  In the colonies, as I previously mentioned, the plantation owners had to cede their plantation over to France and England, but it didn't stop there...they had to cede "all" their property including money, so many of them went broke overnight with nowhere to go.

General

The general aspect of the treaty sure delivered a blow to Germany's reputation and finances. It was divided into 3 clauses...1. The "War Guilt Clause," where Germany's guilt would be echoed internationally for decades and even centuries yet to come. 2. The war damages clause which stated that Germany was responsible for all the collective damages accumulated during the war, and therefore had to pay reparations. And 3. The League of Nations Clause which formed the peace keeping organization. This was the brightest aspect of the treaty, if not the only one. It was an intergovernmental organization with the goal of maintaining world peace through collective security and disarmament, as well as settling global disputes through negotiations and arbitrations, supervising labor conditions, ensuring equal treatment of citizens, stopping human and drug trafficking...the list goes on. It was the U.N. of its time, effectively. In fact,  it was replaced by the U.N. after World War II on April 20th, 1946.   

a

The General Effects of the Treaty of Versailles

Germans were understandably outraged with the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles, which was no less than unethically severe, so the democratic party in power, the Weimar National Assembly, was fragile. It didn't help that their leader, Frederick Ebert, was the person who signed the treaty in the first place. The German public revolted and labeled his party the "November Criminals," which also weakened the Weimar Republic's Enlightenment movement, thus a period of expansive creativity, philosophy, and scientific discovery was cut short. The Kapp Putsch Rebellion, which attempted to overthrow the Weimar Republic but failed, created the chaotic atmosphere that would fester and grow, and cause the Germans to seek radical solution to their problems.  

Of course, with a lack of economy, comes the inability to pay debts. Though I have a high regard for the French and Belgian people, when they invaded the Ruhr in 1923 because Germany couldn't pay her debts, they became even more of a catalyst to Germany's economic decline.  Usually the military is used in war, not as a means to pressure people to pay their debts. Since the people in the Ruhr didn't have any military power to fight back, they were forced to protest peacefully, so they stopped producing goods. As Germany's industrial epicenter, when goods weren't being produced, hyperinflation (or "rising prices") set in, so their currency, the Deutsch Mark, was degraded and had little to no value. Thus the German Depression began. Jobs were scarce and 25% the German workforce was unemployed. Many Germans couldn't afford their homes, so they had to forsake them, becoming homeless (which reminds me of the foreclosure period during Bush's term). Many couldn't even afford basic necessities like food, so starvation rampant. On the positive side, the Germans learned a peaceful method to solving an international crisis-protesting peacefully without arms. If only that method had a lasting effect...

Here comes the scary part, the leadership vacuum in Germany needed to be filled, and the Germans were turning to two radical parties vying for power to solve their problems...the extreme left Communist Party (KPD) and the extreme right Nazi Party  (NSDAP). Their moderate parties the Center Party (ZP) and Democratic Party (DDP) didn't stand a chance.  That is, they were clinging to straws because they needed someone with a sense of vision to bring Germany out of her economic slump and restore her to her former glory. The Ruhr industrialists found those characteristics in Hitler, the infamous genocidal psychopath I referred to before. I think it's such a pity that the enlightenment didn't have time to take hold of the German public, instead of Nazi barbaric ideology. Needless to say, Hitler didn't bring Germany back to her former glory, but damaged her reputation even more. And Jews who shared in Germany's Post World War I plight because they were Germans as well, became the scapegoats. As for America, we can be proud that Harry Truman lent Germany money after World War II. When Germany's prosperity grew, so did their anti-Nazi stance, and peaceful position in the world. In fact, there is currently a growth spurt in the Jewish population in Germany, as a newer generation makes Germany their home. Six million Jewish people, of course, will never come back, but perhaps their lasting legacy is that we can use World War II (and World War I) as a road map on how to deal with our current problem with radical Islamic terrorist groups who tout their genocidal plans.

News Articles


An Acrid of 1914?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/opinions/turkey-ambassador-killing-whiff-of-1914-opinion-ghitis/index.html

A Skeletal Past Resurfaces

http://news.yahoo.com/poland-unearths-one-of-wwii-s-darkest-secrets-161947503.html

Exodus of Israelis BACK to Germany

http://www.timesofisrael.com/berlin-exodus-campaign-sparks-outrage-in-israel/

Syrian Revolutionary Speaks Out. The Elements of WWII Are There.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/syrian-revolutionary-speaks-out_n_5914182.html

A World War at Germany's Doorstep, Once Again

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-iraq-conflicts-spark-street-clashes-germany-193500293.html

Eva Braun, the Delusional Romantic

We are born weak, we need strength; helpless, we need aid; foolish, we need reason. All that we lack at birth, all that we need when we come to man's estate, is the gift of education- Jean Jacques Rousseau 

Hitler with a psycho expression on his face

accompanied by the lady he called his "Tschapperl"

Good girls who love mass murderers, I don't believe there's a syndrome for this. The good girl, bad boy syndrome sounds too weak to describe this highly weird phenomenon, it's too much off the scale-it deserves its own category.  I want to coin it, "The Eva Braun Syndrome," because by all accounts she was in love with Hister, one of Nostradamus' prophesied antichrists, not just one of your average whiskey drinking, verbally abusive jerks, who wears wife beater t-shirts...I mean, he was really crazy. This person killed millions, almost exterminating an entire race in Germany, and still she loved him. How can an apolitical woman who was neither a Nazi sympathizer nor a Jew supporter fall in love with and remain steadfastly committed to such a political monster? Talk about opposites attract! Perhaps it has something to do with her knowledge, because whether or not she knew what was really going on in the concentration camps is doubtful, since Hitler liked to keep her dumbed down and ignorant. I guess he had a thing for what he perceived to be the dumb, beautiful, buxom blond type. Or Tschapperl as he called her. Tschapperl, of course, being an Austrian term for a little girl of no significance.

 

Hitler was attracted to Eva Braun's legs and naivete.

Perhaps she can be excused for her ignorance in hooking up with a mass murderer, because she was so naive when she met him, as any seventeen year old would be. It all began when forty year old Hitler looked at her legs as she as was standing on a ladder in photographer Heinrich Hoffmann's photoshop where she was working. I guess you could say it was love at first calf.  When he introduced himself, he used the name "Wulf," a name she

used throughout their relationship even though it wasn't his own (but suited his predatory nature quite well).  Heinrich Hoffmann pulled her aside when he left and told her that he was Hitler, but it didn't matter to the seventeen year old apolitical Eva, because she didn't know anything about a "Hitler," warts and all. This may be the reason he showed up to the photo gallery on a frequent basis and wine and dined her. Perhaps he was charmed by her naivete, or the fact that he could get away with murder with such a trusting woman (and that he did).

                                                                                                                

All the power is within, therefore, under our control-Robert Collier 

He gradually won her over by the typical woe-is-me stories some men like to employ to attract a woman, and she bit the bait hook, line, and sinker, forgetting, of course, that she wasn't his mother. As a result, she hooked up with a dangerous criminal who made her his mistress, and had no intentions of marrying her.  As Hitler told the Nazi Party's official architect Albert Speer, "I will never marry. The women, they are just there for me to get along with. They are objects."  

Here it shows that he clearly wants women to take care of him, but doesn't want to take care of women. He is insensitive, dismissive, aside from being narcissistic, and clearly a man who needs to learn emotional self-empowerment. He doesn't need to assign his personal problems to women he objectifies.   As Robert Collier says, all the power is within, so he had the ability to heal himself from whatever childhood problems he had (with professional guidance of course). And until he took care of his emotional welfare, he didn't have it in him to take care of anyone else. Perhaps that's why he was dating someone so young-he was emotionally delayed.

True to Hitler's chauvinistic nature, he didn't just have Eva, he had a string of mistresses who were markedly, if not strangely, different from Eva (Hitler was quite the hypocrite). One of these mistresses was the Nazi propaganda film director Leni Riefenstahl who was strong, independent, and doing a man's job. However, the Triumph of the Wills director was also exploiting his popularity which was in fever pitch. Another lover was actress Renate Mueller who strangely committed suicide. Whether it was because she loved Hitler or whether the Nazi's killed her because she wouldn't support the Nazi cause and was dating a Jew, remains a mystery. Even his half niece who he had an incestuous affair with before Eva Braun came onto the scene, Geli Raubal, committed suicide after she found a love letter Eva Braun had written Hitler. So they say. Many people who posed some kind of threat to Hitler or his reputation suddenly committed suicide. It's also worth noting that she was killed with Hitler's gun.

Plants are fashioned by cultivation, man by education. If a man were born tall and strong, his size and strength would be of no good to him till he had learnt to use them...Jean -Jacques Rousseau

Hitler looking peeved while he examens 

Eva Braun's pictures

Of course you just know he had to be a control freak. Even if he didn't put Eva Braun on a pedestal, he still wanted to control her very existence, including what she learned. In fact, he kept her away from learning altogether, so the only education she received was at her stint at Heinrich Hoffman's photography gallery (God forbid she received one from Rousseau)-but even that was limited. Like the quote from Rousseau states, even if Eva Braun were extremely talented or intelligent, her capacity to develop her talents and intelligence was seriously stifled by Hitler, so she wasn't a fully developed person. Her ability to think critically about her situation with him and how to improve it (such recognizing her fundamental rights as a woman, and the pros of leaving him) was also stifled by her lack of education. Perhaps Hitler wanted to stifle her talent and critical thinking abilities, because he didn't want his lover to have the financial wherewithal to leave him or question his politics...in case she became a Jew sympathizer like her sister Ilse. Some say she was the perfect woman for him too, because she didn't care about developing her talents, nor what was going on at his political meetings at the Berghof, nor how Germany was being affected by the war, nor what was going on in the concentration camps. She just wanted to be with him and have fun.The bright side of it all, is that she was the only person allowed to take candid pictures of him, so he allowed her that measure responsibility- even if most of the world didn't know she existed until the end of the war. He kept his "Tschapperl" hidden away as if she were some doll who was too improper for polite company, but brought out to play with. A typical kept woman, I suppose, with absolutely zero influence, and a prisoner relying on his emotional and financial support.

Ilse Braun, the sister who couldn't stop saying bad things about Hitler. 

A psychologist might say she even had the Stockholm syndrome, because she bonded with her abuser. The syndrome was originally named after a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden where the hostages bonded with their captors, despite the abuse they suffered at their hands. It has since come to describe an umbrella of abusive relationships, where the abused partner is supportive, loving, and defensive of their abusive partners. And, yes, she defended Hitler, and went so far as to warn her sister Ilse, that if Hitler put her in a concentration camp because she was constantly saying bad things about him, that she wouldn't get her out. While this is in no way related to philosophy, it's a useful perspective when gauging why she chose to stay with him, when he treated her cruelly.

Another reason we can expect a person like Eva Braun to fall in love with Hitler, is that she wasn't living in reality. Her friends even described her as living in another world, where everything was pleasant and easy. As a result, she pushed any sort of negativity aside, whether it be politics, news, or anything remotely humanitarian.  As Voltaire explains: 

The safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret we can enjoy life and have no fear from death.

 Eva Braun swimming with a friend

....while Jews were being killed in the Salt Mines nearby.

I think she encapsulated that quote perfectly-she was filled with joie de vivre, and that's all she wanted. Her only concerns were her love for Hitler, her sports, her expensive dresses and cosmetics, and her Hollywood movies. She was certainly enjoying herself while Jews were being slaughtered, often not far away from where she was living, such as the salt mines near the Berghof. The only regret she mentions at the onset of the war, was that Germany wasn't making dresses and cosmetics anymore. And during Hitler's downfall, all she was concerned about was water ballet and diving with her friends. 

A deeper side of Eva once mentioned in a letter to Hitler that she promised herself when she first met him, that she would follow him everywhere...even to death.  And that she did depending, once again, on varying accounts (one account has them escaping to Argentina and her abandoning him there). But why? Why would someone follow Hitler to death, if, say, she did follow him to death? Everyone else had the right idea and abandoned him, including his generals who unsuccessfully plotted Hitler's death before the Allies invaded. Why would anyone in their right frame of mind even consider being romantically involved with him in the first place? Perhaps Voltaire explained it well:

Love is a canvas furnished by nature and embroidered by imagination.

Eva Braun wanted to be a Hollywood actress. 

Now while I believe in love, Eva Braun was particularly guided by her imagination. She once wrote in her diary that she relished being Hitler's forbidden love...as she saw people visiting the Berghof from her window. Yes, instead of being humiliated that he was too ashamed to present her to his guests, she thought she was in the thralls of a forbidden romance. Maybe she read one too many romance novels, or perhaps in her delusional and apolitical frame of mind, she could appreciate Hitler. That way he had no scars or pimples-he was just right. And perhaps her feelings for him were to the degree, that she had to erect a false image around him, turning him into a hero instead of a monster. That way she wouldn't lose any respect for him and could continue loving him. She certainly was an optimist, turning negative situations on their head into something fantastical. Another example, is when his neglect and anger upset her, and she attempted suicide because of it (Ilse rescued her). She inevitably reasoned that it ultimately didn't even matter, because she was Germany's mistress, and mistress of the world's greatest man (I'm sure six million people would beg to differ...if they were still alive). It helped, of course, that after the suicide attempt, Hitler moved her to his mansion Berhof, and showered her with expensive gifts such as a Mercedes and designer clothes. Plus she wanted to be a famous actress, so perhaps she thought it was impractical to leave him.

 Eva Braun idolizing Hitler who she still called  fuehrer

when they got married

In the end, the marriage Eva Braun longed for came to fruition. Her man who she still called fuehrer, asked her to marry him because she didn't desert him like everyone else, but joined him in the bunker to die with him rather than following his orders to stay away from Berlin instead (supposedly). Perhaps it was some kind of reward to an underling who was truly devoted to him. I simply can't imagine him being in love with anyone but himself.  And perhaps the reason she still called him "fuehrer," had to do with a professional divide and a lack of intimacy between them because he was always gone. Which begs the question, was Eva Braun truly in love with Hitler, or did she worship him as if he were some prophet, someone famous and special? Hitler had alters all around the Berghof of himself, so perhaps that left her with the impression that he was more of deity or dignitary rather than a lover. So much so, that when he stripped her of her dignity, she still considered herself a lucky girl to be with him.  But then perhaps the fact that she almost committed suicide and was willing to die for him, shows that, indeed, her passion was real.

News Articles

Gobbel's Child Yells "Bullseye" as Hitler Kills Himself

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037701/Hitler-s-24-hours-Bullseye-shouted-Goebbels-little-boy-Hitler-shot-head.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Hitler Was Full of Hot Air

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/5/7339639/what-dictators-ate

 Mango Design Stirs Nazi Controversy

https://www.yahoo.com/style/mango-blouse-accused-of-being-nazi-chic-100510882163.html

The Influx of Contemporary Eva Brauns 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30111040

Hitler and His Possible Asexual Tendencies 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789713/hitler-eva-braun-sex-without-touching-taking-clothes-fanatical-hygiene-says-author-martin-amis.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Hitler's Jewish Ancestry

Baby Hitler. Who would have thought that this sweet little

 boy would grow up to kill millions of people? 

Adolf Hitler had a dream. In his demented utopia, almost everyone was tall, blond haired, and blue eyed-no one was Jewish. However, some of the Jews were just that-tall, with blond hair, and blue eyes. He should have known that fact too, because his first crush was a Jewish lady called Stefanie Isak (her surname has clear Jewish origins and Hitler thought she was Jewish at the time), and she had those idealized features.  Hitler, by contrast, was a short man with brown hair, the very thing he was trying to exterminate. To make matters worse, he had an inkling that he wasn't full Aryan himself, because his lawyer Hans Frank discovered that his paternal grandfather was Jewish, though Hitler vehemently fought against this fact. A recent DNA test of 39 of his descendants, however, substantiates Frank's claim considerably, because it shows that they, and consequently Hitler, had a chromosome called haplogroup E1b1b1, which is found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, as well as Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. Yes, the most racist man on earth, at the time (he's been replaced I would say), was both Jewish and African. Or to put it more bluntly, his own worst nightmare. 

Hitler having a snack with his Jewish lady, Eva Braun.

To add irony into the mixture, there's a distinct possibility he married a Jew.  In the series Dead Famous, the son of a former American Army intelligence officer who claimed to have taken Eva Braun's possessions when he raided Hitler's Alpine residence in Berghof, Bavaria, gave scientist Mark Evans what he claims is Eva Braun's hairbrush. A hair sample from the hairbrush was taken by forensic scientists who sequenced her DNA,  and it showed that whoever owned the brush, had Ashkenazi decent, or haplogroup N1b1. So, if it really is Eva Braun's hairbrush, then she was Jewish. Her two descendants, however, refused to give a sample of their DNA so it can be compared with the hair sample for accuracy. 

 

Is it possible to be Jewish in Nazi Germany and not even know it? Absolutely! During the 19th century (and even earlier), in order to raise their civic status, obtain a position, purchase land, ennoblement, and to simply have more basic human rights, many Jews converted to Catholicism. So it's highly possible that a German person has Jewish ancestry, and doesn't even know it. It's also possible that a lot of Nazis had Jewish ancestry, and didn't even know it. Hitler certainly wasn't aware that he was of Jewish extraction prior to his rise because of an illegitimate birth, and Eva Braun had no idea whatsoever, we assume (the Jewish DNA from the hairbrush comes from the maternal line, and yes her mother, Hilda Braun, was a Catholic). This, of course, makes the war and his philosophy even more tragically ironic and hypocritical. 

The most apolitical woman in history, Eva Braun. She was neither for nor against the Third Reich and the atrocities that were being committed on their behalf. Perhaps this fact alone alludes to the possibility that she knew she was Jewish.

But what if Eva Braun knew that she was Jewish? Would she have hid her ancestry because she was in love with a mass murderer who was exterminating her people? Would it have been his immense power that attracted her? Or would she have fallen in love with the life he provided for her because she had expensive taste, especially for dresses? Certainly, it seems like all these factors would have come into play. One would loath to think, that if she knew she was Jewish, she was protecting her own skin by being romantically involved with Hitler, himself. I mean, that's as selfish as you get. But it ultimately makes sense that she was besotted by the mustache baring terrorist, because a lot of women were, for some odd reason that completely escapes me. Maybe it's because of the dapper way he dressed himself...like your average tyrant. Perhaps it's attraction to the criminal type ("Oh baby, murder someone again!"). One thing's for sure, her family had an aversion to Hitler in the beginning, so perhaps they drove her into his arms. And perhaps she really did love him, because she attempted suicide "twice," but I'll reserve that topic for another blog (that deserves a thorough examination). 

 It is not the twinges of gout that make a man kill himself, it is mental suffering that leads to despair; our worst sorrows are of our own making - Jean Jacques Rousseau


Of course, when it comes to Hitler, with so much partiality for what seems to be Jewish women, you wonder why would he be interested in exterminating the entire Jewish race since he likes them so much. The first and most accurate thought that comes to mind is that he's a psychopath. I suppose it could be the typical criminal response..."I had a bad childhood, and they caused it." They all had bad childhoods, and all have had scapegoats-someone, a group of people, or even an entire race to blame for their personal problems, whether or not they were a contributing factor. In his childhood, Hitler's father tied him to a tree and whipped him with chains, but he wasn't antisemitic as a young man, so whether or not that's a direct contributing factor is doubtful. It's to be expected, however, that it cultivated a certain level of anger and violence in him. Perhaps it was his rejection from the Vienna Academy of Arts by a Jewish professor, that was the tipping point that led to his antisemitism. It couldn't have helped that Vienna was a hotbed of racism at the time, and that the bohemian artist was struggling to survive in 
Post World War I Germany (resentment much?). 

But as Rousseau opines in the quote above, it's not external factors that causes our sorrows, it's internal factors. And since we all suffer, placing blame on an entire race is irrational, fruitless, counterproductive, not to mention wrong and evil. 
Is there ever a point when blaming other people for our problems is appropriate? Since we are happy the instant we choose to be, I'd have to say the answer is no. And Rousseau would have said as much himself, because, as his quote states, unhappiness is also a choice, we create it. Of course there are exceptions, we can't be entirely immune to everything, but if Jewish psychiatrist and author of Man's Search for Meaning, Victor E. Frankel, can choose to be happy in a concentration camp, nothing is stopping the rest of mankind from choosing that route in their lives. That's the beauty of free will...no one can take your happiness away unless you give it to them. In other words, Hitler really couldn't blame anyone but himself for his own misfortunes; certainly he couldn't blame the entire Jewish race, who he blamed for everything under the sky, even the inevitable defeat of the Nazi regime in 1945. Yet, as we see here, he could have inadvertently loved Jewish people too, and was most likely Jewish himself. So if there is a lesson to learn from Hitler's DNA analysis, it's that we have to be careful about scapegoating people, who knows what we share in common with them.  



Blogs and News:

Hitler was crazy alright, and here are some examples:

www.businessinsider.com/4-of-the-weirdest-things-the-nazis-ever-did-2015-7

Antisemitism on the rise in Germany because of what's happening in Gaza.
http://news.yahoo.com/merkel-vows-fight-anti-semitism-germany-112430114.html