Talk:Adolf Hitler/Hitler's Sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Hitler's sexuality

Regarding the Michael Dorosh Revision [1] as of 21:57, 13 February 2006 wherein your comment says: "you can't suggest he was gay and then label him as gay - removed category". For the record, Professor Lothar Machtan in fact declared Adolf Hitler was gay. My use of the category "Gay politicians" for Adolf Hitler is predicated upon the same criteria as other Wikipedians have used for similar such categorizing of Alexander the Great, Edward II of England plus dozens more. In fact, in the case of Hitler there is far more evidence that he was gay than for many others placed in a "gay" category at Wikipedia. Karl Schalike 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Str1977 Revision [2] as of 00:09, 14 February 2006. Your deletion of the my entire input on the homosexuality of Adolf Hitler with the edit comment "reinsert proper numbers, rv POV-based (see edit summary) insertion of details" is unacceptable vandalism as is any form of homophobia at Wikipedia. The information I inserted on Hitler's sexuality is NPOV and is fact-based with direct quotes from impeccable scholarship by William L. Shirer, Professor Lothar Machtan and others and endorsed by numerous scholars, respected critics, and major media including those from the gay community. The Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee has already banned [3] others from making homosexuality/bisexuality edits. If you have concerns as to the validity of anything I insert into the article, then please follow Wikipedia policy procedures and enunciate them here. Karl Schalike 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, the info you inserted into Hitler was word for word accurate (I guess you are referring to this by naming Shirer - Machtan is not impeccable scholarship but the author of the fringe theory). However, the info was also mere details of which we could included thousands and your edit summary "Hitler's sexuality" betrayed your POV, as did your follow-up posting of a category. We will not have fringe hypothesis with bascically not a strain of credulity in the article, especially not by decreeing them as fact or by sneaking them in by not stating but alluding. I don't care what the Homosexual community thinks on this, I care for the Historical community and what it thinks on Machtan. How the deletion of poorly based, overblown claims that one of the biggest mass murderer in history were an homosexual can be considered "homophobic" is beyond even the wild extensions of that term one commonly encounters. If your care for procedure, than put it up for discussion on the Hitler talk page. Thanks very much. Str1977 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on Professor Machtan is irrelevant. And, as noted in The Hidden Hitler article, his research and conclusions have been widely accepted by other scolars, critics, book reviewers, and major media. Wikipedia details reliable and credible sources for such claims such as that in Abraham Lincoln as one example. Plus, there are dozens of others where statements from far less credible sources appear in the biography and they are given the "gay" category. Wikipedia reports credible sources, and NPOV means we editors don't make claims as to their veracity. Karl Schalike 16:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I move the section over from the article, for further discussion. Karl, apart from any concerns about content, your placing of this section on the top of the article suggests POV pushing in my book. [Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Excised_section Here it is.] -- Str1977 16:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 - Do not revert my edit. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. As stated already, if you have diagreements with any of the facts I inserted, then air your opinion here. Karl Schalike 16:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl,

  • please read the article on Kubizek you have linked to and see the standards of any valid treatment of this hypothesis looks like. Than compare it with your inclusion here.
  • regardless of what I think about Machtan (and his hilarious if not so saddening thesis on why Hitler put homosexuals into camps certainly doesn't invoke any high estimations), his theory is (to put it mildly) not widely accepted. It is disputed. Hence including Hitler into the category of homosexual politicians is unacceptable. (That might be a problem in other articles too, but if you care about that go there and removed them there. Improve these articles - don't worsen this one to prove a point,)
  • Since when is Mrs Haamann a homosexual activist? Her article here doesn't exist and her article on the German WP certainly doesn't imply this.

Str1977 16:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Again, your opinion of Machtan is not relevant. Wikipedia policy is extremely clear on this editing policy. As to running around and challenging others, I told you earlier here and on your personal talk page, the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee [4] has already banned editors for that kind of unacceptable conduct. Karl Schalike 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • This Karl guy is a nutbag. The only "proof" he can site is this Prof. Machtan's claims. This is another case of this "encyclopedia" giving creedence to the fictious writings of some anti- nazi windbag. You guys should really check out your own entries. Here's a hint. Click on Lothar Machtan above, read the "factual" wikipedia article about him CAREFULLY, then click on all 3 men listed as homosexuals that helped Hitler rise to power, and read their profiles. Notice anything strange? The first thing you should notice is that 2 of them, as well as Hitler, were dead before Machtan was born, so it's easy to claim they were gay, they can't say otherwise and who's going to stand up for them?? However, if you read the Ernst Hanfstaengl profile you will find it says he was married in 1920 and had 2 children. A married homosexual with 2 children? Sounds like somebody (Machtan) has his wire crossed.I like to call all this "Hitlerphobia". For years people claimed he was Jewish because of the holocaust. That he was gay because homosexuals were also targeted. I've even heard he was desended from gypses and that's why they were targeted as well.GET A CLUE!! You don't kill your own kind. Did the 2 Jewish kids at Columbine kill other Jews? No, they shot minorities and Christians. Did the 3 Jewish college students that did those Alabama church burnings burn any synagogs? No. Seen any gay guys arrested lately for "gay-bashing"? What I'm trying to say is, quit trying to make Hitler something he was not. It's like saying the Christian participents in the Crusades were secretly Muslims or that the KKK was made up of (secretly) black men. The guy's been dead for 60 years, let it rest. If you can't, try pondering this. It's been almost as long since the U.S. dropped 2 Atomic bombs on Japan. Do you think the Japanese call president Franklin Roosevelt a (secretly) Japanese homosexual?

[edit] What Next???

What next? David Irving coming along to edit the article and say that Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust? This article is fast becoming a joke. I can see a one or two sentence summation of the gay claim under 'trivia' or something, but to give credence to a claim based on the work of a single agenda-driven historian is ludicrous. Again, I ask - what next?Michael Dorosh 16:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 - You have reverted my edits three times in less than 24 hours. One more time and I will have no choice but to report a violation of the three revert rule. Regretfully, further mass deletions of factual NPOV and relevant material from impeccable sources will force me to refer such conduct to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Karl Schalike 16:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, no, I have reverted twice and consciously refrained from reverting a third time, though I could have done so. BTW, you always have a choice in your actions, especially in whether to report a (hypothetical) violation of Wiki rules. I have in the recent past encountered quite a few violations of 3RR and haven't reported. I know about ArbCom and have recently been involved in a very long-lasting case resembling this one a bit (not yet, but the substance is there). The offender is banned now, so please be reasonable. Str1977 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Karl, YOU have reverted MY edits three times, and for factual material to be deleted, it first has to be posted. Your material doesn't count. Bring on the Committee, it will be great to get a decision on this. Can't wait. Let us know if you need help composing your email to them. Michael Dorosh 16:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Arbitration Commitee has already ruled on your kind of conduct but I will gladly refer to them. Karl Schalike 16:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, please - this content dispute is hardly arbcom material. Although editing this article can be a very frustrating experience, perhaps the dispute can be still worked out? Jbetak 17:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The correct place for your material, Karl, would be in a separate article; it is far too long for this one, and based on material that is unproven and written by POV-biased sources. Tell us - what do Kershaw or some of the other Hitler biographers have to say on this issue? Can you name one that corroborates any of your claims? No. My suggestion is to a seperate article and provide a link to it from here, but it is inappropriate for inclusion here. Perhaps the other editors might post their opinions also and we can arrive at a consensus. Michael Dorosh 17:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There are already some articles on that topic, created by Karl:

Karl has also pushed this issue into articles on Ernst Röhm, Rudolf Hess, Eva Braun and listed Hitler among various homosexual categories as if it were an established fact and not a contentious fringe theory.

Str1977 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Dorosh - Please refrain from false allegations. My claims? I never made any claims. I followed Wikipedia policy as done at Abraham Lincoln and other articles, and inserted NPOV facts and quotes. That is all, your personal opinions are irrelevant. And contrary to your apparent homophobic assumptions, Professor Machtan is highly regarded and his research lauded. Please take note of the fact that Str1977 admitted on his talk page [5] : "Karl, the info you inserted into Hitler was word for word accurate."

That is all, your personal opinions are irrelevant. And contrary to your apparent homophobic assumptions, Professor Machtan is highly regarded and his research lauded. - where does this come from? Is that not an insult? I'd like you to either defend that statement, or offer an immediate apology. I feel offended by that groundless insinuation. It also does you little credit; it is a form of emotional blackmail and really a cheap stunt. Why should we take you seriously after something like that? Explain, or apologize, please. Resorting to ad hominem also says a lot.Michael Dorosh 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your conduct here violates the principles and policy under which Wikipedia operates. Your action leaves me no choice but to ask the Arbitration Committee to reinforce their ruling and consider a ban similar to that imposed on Wyss. Karl Schalike 17:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the assertion that Hitler was homosexual is an "attack" is completely dependent on one's point of view. Personally, I am much more concerned with the lack of reference to the fascist nature of Hitler's ideology, which appears to me (and apparently others) to be easily proved. I can't get too up-tight about whether Hitler should be in the "Gay politicians" category, when we still can't agree (along with the German wikipedia) that the article should link to the Fascism category. It concerns me more when an editor removes reference to the Holocaust, and to the millions of deaths caused by Hitler's aggression, from the introduction, than to speculation as to Hitler's sexuality.
Having said that, I agree that the article should not include the proposed long essay on Hitler's sexuality - it all seems based on after-the-fact speculation, and rumours abounding at the time. Of course people in the thirties would "cast aspersions" on Hitler's sexuality - in those days, to call someone "effeminate" was one of the acceptable forms of discrediting them. How can it be proved one way or the other? How can some professor "declare" that Hitler was gay? (Dorothy Thompson's remark about Hitler "crooking his little finger when he drinks a cup of tea" is, frankly, hilarious, and not worth mentioning in any article).
I would invite Karl Schalike to create a short paragraph in this article and link to the article "Hitler's sexuality", where the various theories can be put forward. Then the debate can take place there, and we can get on with the more relevant discussion as to the nature of Hitler's regime and ideology. Camillus (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The speculative material about sexuality is wholly unsupported and has no place in this article. Speculative, unsupported published sources are not reliable nor verifiable and therefore are not acceptable under WP guidelines. There is zero, I repeat, zero evidence AH and Gustl Kubicek had sexual relations and most of the other stuff bandied about on the subject of Mr Hitler's sex life through the years has been codswallop. Meanwhile, WP has had similar incidents involving Abraham Lincoln and Elvis Presley along with at least a dozen other famous (and very dead) people. At the very most and only to diffuse this abuse of WP I'd support a separate article called Adolf Hitler's sexuality in which this stuff could be mentioned and thoroughly debunked. Wyss 18:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Golly, Wyss I thought you were banned. Looks like three votes for a separate article on Hitler's alleged homosexuality, and 1 in favour of keeping that info in this article.Michael Dorosh 18:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder has already said that RfA likely needs to be fixed. The admin who tossed me into that wrote an email apologizing profusely for it and tried to get me pulled out but he was ignored, they boneheadedly didn't do their homework and thought I was defending someone's honour or something. Give me a frickin' break. I respect arbcomm but they botched is all. It'll work itself out. I will revert this sort of codswallop on sight and would welcome any new RfA that would examine the clear sourcing vios this sort of unscholarly abuse represents. There are plenty of historical figures for whom we have clear evidence that a mention along these lines is helpful and appropriate and by the bye, have a look at Dana Plato for an example where I've politely insisted supported evidence of LGBT behaviour be reflected. I've also contributed heavily to Liberace. Some biographiocal subjects warrant this discussion. Adolf Hitler, Mr charismatic world shaking genocidal sociopath, is not one of them. Wyss 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Beware conflation Readers are cautioned that conflation of documented facts is rampant in popular historical topics like AH. For example, Ernst Röhm is documented has having been homosexual and there is no meaningful dissent among historians about it. Röhm had a public image problem as a result, even resorting to (ineffective) newspaper campaigns in which he was photographed with his mother. Moreover, the SA had many practicing homosexuals in its leadership ranks. When AH purged the SA and ordered Röhm shot in his prison cell it was because the brownshirts were threatening his absolute political control of the Nazi party. Wyss 20:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logic, first lesson

This material is from The Atheism Web

Implication in detail

Clearly you can build a valid argument from true premises, and arrive at a true conclusion. You can also build a valid argument from false premises, and arrive at a false conclusion.

The tricky part is that you can start with false premises, proceed via valid inference, and reach a true conclusion. For example:

  • Premise: All fish live in the ocean
  • Premise: Sea otters are fish
  • Conclusion: Therefore sea otters live in the ocean

There's one thing you can't do, though: start from true premises, proceed via valid deductive inference, and reach a false conclusion.

We can summarize these results as a 'truth table' for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.

Truth Table for Implication
Premise Conclusion Inference
A B A => B
false false true
false true true
true false false
true true true
  • If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false. (Lines 1 and 2.)
  • If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid. (Line 3.)
  • If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true. (Line 4.)

So the fact that an argument is valid doesn't necessarily mean that its conclusion holds -- it may have started from false premises.

If an argument is valid, and in addition it started from true premises, then it is called a sound argument. A sound argument must arrive at a true conclusion.

I hope Karl can recognize that his argument belongs to the row 3 of the table - a false (or at least unproven, unprovable and not accepted) conclusion starting from true premises, resulting in an unsound argument. While the miscellany of fact and conjecture he has compiled may be based on actual events, they don't lead to any valid inference about Hitler's sexuality. Using Karl's arguments one can also pin down every effeminate, squeamish, soft-skinned etc man that one knows as gay - if that isn't the worst sort of homophobic or sexist stereotyping, I don't know what is. -- Simonides 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Excised section

[edit] Adolf Hitler's sexuality

For years it has been known that and a number of Hitler's high-ranking henchman were homosexual and as far back as 1931 the Munich Post reported that "every knowledgeable person knows that inside the Hitler party, the most flagrant whorishness contemplated by paragraph 175 is widespread." The newspaper attacked "the disgusting hypocrisy that the Nazi Party demonstrates--outward moral indignation (against homosexuality) while inside its own ranks the most shameless practices prevail." As well, there were early suggestions that Adolf Hitler himself might have been gay. After interviewing Hitler in 1931, American journalist Dorothy Thompson, noted by Time magazine in 1939 as one of the two most influential women in the United States, wrote about Hitler's "soft, almost feminine charm." She alluded to his possible homosexuality as much as media standards and political realities of the day allowed by saying "I bet he crooks his little finger when he drinks a cup of tea."

In 1945 Samuel Igra published Germany's National Vice, which said homosexuality ran through the heart of Nazism. Igra named Hitler aides and close friends who he said were known homosexuals. In what is considered the definitive history of Nazi Germany, the 1960 book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer states that "many of the early Nazis were homosexual - who flocked to the party as if to a natural haven." Shirer wrote that Hitler, "who was so monumentally intolerant by his very nature, was strangely tolerant of one human condition-a man's morals."

During the latter part of 1905, Hitler met musician August Kubizek and the two quickly became close friends, sharing a bed in a room they rented on the Stumpergasse in Vienna. In his post-war book, Young Hitler, the Story of Our Friendship, Kubizek wrote that during their time together Hitler "always rejected the coquettish advances of girls or women. Women and girls took an interest in him in Linz as well as Vienna, but he always evaded their endeavors." In Kubizek's book he also wrote that Hitler had a great love for a girl named "Stefanie" and wrote her countless love poems but never sent them to her. Instead, the book says, Hitler read his poem "Hymn to the Beloved" to Kubizek. Several scholars have claimed that evidence shows that parts of Kubizek's book were fabricated, and the extensive research by Professor Lothar Machtan stated that while the Stefanie girl definitely existed, some of the 1953 writing was a deliberate "heterosexualizing" of Hitler in retrospect.

In Germany, psychology professor Manfred Koch-Hillebrecht published Homo Hitler. Psychogramm des deutschen Diktators. in 1999 and in 2001, Lothar Machtan, historian and professor of Modern and Current History at University of Bremen, published Hitlers Geheimnis. Das Doppelleben eines Diktators with an English translation by John Brownjohn titled "The Hidden Hitler." In his work, Professor Machtan presents a documented study of Adolf Hitler's homosexuality and the impact his being gay had upon his life and career. Machtan writes that the records show Hitler himself never condemned homosexuality, but he allowed the murder and persecution of gays in order to keep the secret of his own homosexuality from surfacing. The respected Austrian gay activist, historian, and writer Brigitte Hamann too has investigated Hitler's homosexuality and appears in the 2004 HBO documentary film Hidden Fuhrer: Debating the Enigma of Hitler's Sexuality by gay American documentarians Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato.

[edit] Further comments

There is absolutely no consensus to keep this section as is in the article, and certainly not where it was placed (wedged between Early Childhood and something else). If necessary one can mention that there is some speculation on Hitler's sexuality, and place references or footnotes, but follow it up by explaining that no major biographer or scholar of the Nazi period has ever supported or mentioned evidence of the notion that Hitler was homosexual. -- Simonides 04:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.Michael Dorosh 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Agathoclea 07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.Str1977 10:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed (that the article is not the place for this speculation, though I have nothing against a separate article. Who gives a damn whether Hitler was homosexual?) Camillus (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for your information. It should be noted that there is some evidence that User:Karl Schalike is identical with User:Ted Wilkes and multi-hardbanned User:DW. See Schalike's contribution supporting the deleting and reverting tactics by Ted Wilkes which were criticized by several Wikipedia administrators here. For facts supporting the view that Ted Wilkes is a sockpuppet of DW, see [6]. Ted Wilkes is currently placed on probation and banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See [[7]]. He was, and still is, involved in an edit war with me concerning claims that some celebrity stars such as James Dean, Elvis Presley and Nick Adams may have been bisexual or gay. Last year Wilkes even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page I had created to a Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but this page never came into existence, as the content was totally deleted by him. See also the articles on Elvis and Me, the Memphis Mafia and related talk pages. It is very interesting that Karl Schalike is now providing an argument in support of the view that Adolf Hitler might have been homosexual. However, these claims exist. Therefore, the material may be included in a separate article entitled Hitler's sexuality or Hitler's supposed homosexuality. Onefortyone 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler's homosexuality

Sorry, but you have ignored Wikipedia:policy. Inserting a section for someone's sexuality exists in Wikipedia already and is part of numerous articles with a Wikipedia "Gay" Category given to many Wikipedia biographies based on little more than rumors. Like it or not, the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee supported this fact with Onefortyone. Editor's on the Hitler article do not have the right to "vote" to ignore the issue. Editors here do not work in a vacuum, we are required to work within the established rules and policies, or, if we disagree, we apply to the Arbitration Committee to change them. No editor here has the right to ignore the research of a University of Bremen professor and respected historian for more than 27 years whose conclusions that Adolf Hitler was homosexual is supported by historian Brigitte Hamann and others. Dismissive comments that call Dr. Machtan "fringe" and the like only serves to quantify the writer. - Karl Schalike 18:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

How many of the historians supporting Machtan have published a major work on Hitler? A small community of fringe writers supporting each other (much like we've seen on these very talk pages, really) does not make historical allegations any more true. One book is not evidence of anything - see Lifton's book alleging John F. Kennedy's body was stolen from Air Force One and then surgically altered before being smuggled back just before his autopsy...Michael Dorosh 18:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl Schalike is also attempting to insert this wholly unsupported material into Eva Braun, August Kubizek and Rudolf Hess. I've allowed a brief mention of Machtan in August Kubizek, for debunking purposes. Any help editors can give in keeping these articles firmly sourced on reliable authors and verifiable documentation is much appreciated. Wyss 19:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This in fact will remain in all the articles including Adolf Hitler in keeping with Wikipedia policy. That a Ph.D. and historian plus others such as Dr. Hamann aren't credible sources for Wikipedia says volumes about the Wikipedia editor. Karl Schalike 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not the Ph.D., it's what one does with the Ph.D. that sways scholarship. Wyss 19:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Amen. I've read way too many shitty books by supposed "academics", Ph.D's included, to be anything like overawed by so-called intellectual credentials. They are not a be-all end-all in judging whether or not a writer is a crackpot, or overly biased. Michael Dorosh 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I harbour some doubts regarding what Mrs Hamann has to say on the issue. She is a reputed historian and biographer and was cited in my courses about Hitler but never did this allegation come up seriously. Just because she was in some way involved in that TV show doesn't mean she supports Machtan's views. Quite apart from Karl's description of her which was new to me. Str1977 00:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My two-cents...

The none-too-subtle nature of Karl Schalike's threating to turn this into a discrimination issue is absolutely nothing short of contemptible. Oh, it might be worth pointing out that I, myself, am gay. That said, this matter has nothing in the slightest to do with homophobia other than its use here as a shameless coercion tactic.

Any rational human being will glean from Karl's writing here the extent to which he has made this a personal point of contention, thus espousing a POV motivated more by pre-conceived socio-political notions than any desire for historical accuracy. Indeed, the comment in which he states refusal to accept the "credible sources" as conclusive "says volumes about the Wikipedia editor" is laughable for its sheer irony, as is the one declaring all dissenting 'opinions' to be irrelevent (ditto for the factual evidence behind those opinions, apparently, as he never even once directly responded to any of them).

Karl, what speaks volumes about the editors here is the monumental sense of patience they've displayed in entertaining this tomfoolery - I seriously doubt I could have been so polite. Now, given your utter distain for matters of opinion, let's use some common sense and resolve this with a simple question (and one wholly un-influenced by opinion, to boot!)

Effectively, it comes down to this: Are you able to state that your supported view on this matter is one accepted by the vast majority of credible, reputable historians and academic community?

Lest you have any confusion, and wend in causing yourself further embarassment, I'll help answer that for you: No, you can't, and for this reason it has no rightful place being presented as accepted truth in the context of a non-fiction reference source. Period. Is there really any left to talk about? --JBowman79 23:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Accommodating such fringe speculation seems a little too indulgent. Fishhead64 06:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The section speculating about Hitler possibly being homosexual was removed because the user who removed it said that it did not have enough evidence. But the article J. Edgar Hoover speculates about Hoover being homosexual and that has not been removed. There is far more evidence for the allegations of Hitler's homosexuality than for Hoover's and for some of the other historical figures described as homosexual on wikipedia. FDR MyTalk 23:15 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/o/Talk%7EAdolf_Hitler_Hitler%27s_Sexuality_28e1.html"