Hitler's Testicles

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Hitler's Testicles

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 month 1 week ago (Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:36 pm)

I have been reading Robert Gellately's new book "Hitler's True Believers"

81JWLVgVU3L.jpg


Which, as I said in a previous topic, has made some pretty odd claims regarding banal historical details, and in this example, resurgent historical myths. Namely, that Hitler only had one testicle, or just a general problem with his testicles in general.

Gellately says in context of the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch:
Their leader was fortunate to get away with only a dislocated upper arm, though the prison doctor’s initial examination revealed that from birth Hitler had suffered from cryptorchidism, or the absence of a testis, on the right side. The condition does not necessarily mean either effeminacy or complete infertility, though its recent rediscovery in the records will likely fuel speculation about its psychological effects on the man.

Robert Gellately, Hitler's True Believers: How Ordinary Peoples Became Nazis (Oxford University Press, 2020), Pp. 30-31


The note for this is:
Entry book (Nov. 11, 1924), reprinted in Hitler als Häftling in Landsberg am Lech 1923–24: Die Gefangenen-Personalakte Hitler nebst weiteren Quellen aus der Schutzhaft-,Untersuchungshaft-, und Festungshaftanstalt Landsberg am Lech, Peter Fleischmann, ed. (Neustadt an der Aisch, 2015), 416–17.


Whether or not this statement is true, I don't know. Gellately in his book has every footnote outsourced in German, as to make the researching of further information next to impossible for English readers. This to me isn't a coincidence, although I cannot prove it.

For Gellately to say that is a "rediscovery" is interesting, what happened to this "fact" the last time? Again, I cannot check the reference, but I would have to wonder why some doctor would be checking Hitler's testicles when he has a dislocated shoulder...I've never dislocated anything personally, but I think It's safe for me to assume that a doctor fondling your testicles isn't a common customary occurrence.

The veracity of this document is suspicious to say the least, in no other medical report in Hitler's life does anyone ever mention such a "disorder".

Ian Kershaw, in the first volume of his 1998 Hitler biography stated:

Claims that sexual deviance arising from the absence of a testicle were the root of Hitler’s personality disorder rest on a combination of psychological speculation and dubious evidence provided by the Russian autopsy after the capture of the burnt remains of his body in Berlin.137

137. The evidence that Hitler had only one testicle depends solely upon the Russian autopsy evidence (Lev Bezymenski, The Death of Adolf Hitler, London, 1968, 46, 49). This stands diametrically contradicted by several detailed medical examinations carried out at different times by his doctors, who were adamant that his sexual organs were quite normal. In a critical review in the Sunday Times, 29 September 1968, Hugh Trevor Roper gave cogent reasons for scepticism about the general reliability of Bezymenski’s report. Maser, Hitler, 527–9, summarizes the medical examinations of Hitler by his own doctors and raises the possibility that the body on which the Soviet autopsy was performed may not have been that of Hitler. Waite, 150–62, accepts the dubious evidence of monorchism and builds it into an elaborate explanation of Hitler’s psychological abnormalities. Binion, in his biting review of Waite, Journal of Psychohistory, 5 (1977), 296–7, is more properly sceptical, coming down – as the weight and nature of the testimony surely demands – in favour of the several examinations of Hitler while he was alive, none of which indicated any genital abnormality.

Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris (Allen Lane, 1998), Pp. 45, 617-618


And more recently, in the first volume of Volker Ullrich's 2016 biography of Hitler (the original German edition was published in 2013) he says:

Hitler’s biography contains more rumours and legends than his relations with women. The most bizarre among them is the perpetual canard about his abnormal genitalia. This myth is based on a former classmate’s story that a goat bit off half his penis as a young man and the assertion made by a Soviet army doctor who performed a post-mortem on Hitler in 1945 that he was missing his left testicle. According to everything we know from his personal doctor Theodor Morell, Hitler’s sexual organs were perfectly normal. Speculation that he was physically unable to have sex is completely unfounded.

3. For a summary see Hans-Joachim Neumann and Henrik Eberle, War Hitler krank? Ein abschliessender Befund, Bergisch-Gladbach, 2009, pp. 52–60; see also Heinz Linge, Bis zum Untergang: Als Chef des Persönlichen Dienstes bei Hitler, ed. Werner Maser, Munich, 1982, p. 94; Werner Maser, Adolf Hitler: Legende—Mythos—Wirklichkeit, 12th edition, Munich and Esslingen, 1989, pp. 323f.; Gustav Keller, Der Schüler Adolf Hitler: Die Geschichte eines lebenslangen Amoklaufs, Münster, 2012, p. 25, repeats the story of the bitten penis without discussion. On the tale that Hitler had lost a testicle after being wounded at the beginning of October 1916, see Thomas Weber, Hitler’s First War: Adolf Hitler, the Men of the List Regiment, and the First World War, Oxford and New York, 2010. pp. 154f.

Volker Ullrich, Hitler Ascent 1889-1939 (The Bodly Head, London, 2016), Pp. 267-668, 827


And Thomas Weber in his book "Hitler's First War" casts this myth into further improbability:

According to a Polish priest, who claims to have had conversations in the 1960s with the medic who treated Hitler after his injury, Hitler lost one of his testicles in the battle. The medic, Johan Jambor, had allegedly told him of Hitler: ‘His abdomen and his legs were covered in blood. Hitler was injured in the abdomen and had lost his testicle. His first question for the doctor was: ‘‘Will I still be able to have children?’’ ’ A friend of Jambor claimed that Jambor had given him a similar account: ‘Jambor and his friend searched for injured soldiers for hours. They called Hitler ‘‘the screamer’’. He was very loud and shouted ‘‘Help, Help!’’

Maybe Jambor really believed in this version of events, however self serving the telling of the story was. Yet his testimony should certainly be treated as fiction.46 Even if we ignore the fact that none of Hitler’s military and medical records mention an injury to the abdomen and that Hitler did not have to be ‘found’ as he was not injured on the battlefield but in the dugout of the support staff of regiment headquarters, Jambor’s account is less than convincing. Even if Hitler really had lost one of his testicles and was saved by Jambor, why would he have remembered the fate as well as the name of this particular still totally unknown, insignificant soldier, when he must have encountered hundreds, maybe thousands, of injured soldiers during the war?

Thomas Weber, Hitler's First War (Oxford University Press, 2010), Pp. 154-155


Andrew Roberts also doesn't believe this to be the case. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087380/Did-Hitler-really-ONE-testicle-A-historian-sorts-extraordinary-truth-far-flung-myths-Fuhrer.html

Now, what should jump out to you is that all these books i've cited have come out before the publication of the book Gellately cites. So we're missing some crucial information regarding the origins of that document which alleges to make some statements about Hitler's testicles.

However, the big question here, is how on earth could this document suddenly, out of nowhere "show up" or be "rediscovered"? Such a niche document confirming what had been known to be false for such a long time but rumoured by untrustworthy sources hostile to Hitler, is a gigantic convenient plot twist, one I'm not willing to believe. Especially when you consider that no other verifiable report or statement by anyone has ever supported the slightest bit of evidence in this direction.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests