Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Rex, Feb 21, 2012.
Hitler's Love Child
Wow. Who'd want to claim this? Discuss.
All I can think for right now to say is ewwww...... I hope this is another hoax for the sake of the deceased Mr Loret's family.
Yikes! That poor family, if it's true.
Hitler does have living relatives. I say DNA test or it didn't happen.
Though the paintings are certainly interesting as the average Frenchwoman did not have Hitler's watercolors stashed in her attic. The stories, eh, and the blood type's meaningless (it's not do you have the SAME blood type, it's is your blood type compatible with the alleged parent's.)
It would certainly put to rest the speculation about Hilter being unable/unwilling to perform...though that was before he got gassed in the trenches.
This is the first time I've heard that Hitler was allegedly impotent. I thought he and Eva Braun were long-time lovers before they married near the end of their lives. But what do I know?
I'd like to see the pics of this son.
Hmmm, what do you all think?
You don't choose your parents, but you do choose your actions. Mr. Loret fought against the Nazis and even joined the Resistance in France. Based on these articles, he doesn't sound like he was a genocidal warmonger. I mean, yes, it's terrible to be related (or a direct descendant) to the most infamous criminal of the 20th Century, and he sounds like he was depressed about it, but "evil" is not inherited from DNA, you know?
Speaking of DNA, though, I'd love to see the results of any tests!
I agree, Orable. I do think it's interesting, though, that the rest of his closest relatives (cousins? half-brothers? I can't recall....) made a pact to never marry, nor have children.
He looks like the FedEx man who comes to my work sometimes.
I say DNA test - but it really won't matter, Hitler did have relatives, I think his sister died in the 50s or even later so who really cares if he had a child during WWI.
He was a beautiful painter, too bad the art school didn't accept him, I wonder how history would have been different?
I remember reading somewhere that his brothers (or nephews?) agreed not to have any children, just to reduce the chance of having another like Adolf...is this true?
I don't think anyone is arguing that point of view. What did I miss?
Only one of Hitler's siblings lived to adulthood, there are no direct decentents from Hitler's parents. But there are some from his half siblings -
There is a lot written about them...
David Gardner's book The Last of the Hitlers (2001)
Just responding to the ewwws and yikes and poor guy reactions.
I don't think any of that assumes he's evil or passing along Evil Genes. Just 'who would want to be Hitler's son?" His own relatives changed their name to avoid being associated with him. (And I think the lawyer musing about this man's heirs being entitled to royalties from Mein Kampf is just a bit tacky.)
And to the issue of Hitler...um...well, not performing, there was definitely some question about what he did or didn't do with Eva (he did specifically NOT want to be married or seen as taken, let alone have children, as he wanted to create the impression of being 'married to the fatherland') and of course there were the usual kind of stories that get told about enemy leaders. (And apparently the Russian autopsy doctors DID look to see if Hilter, in fact, had only got one...um..can I say that on FSU?)
I think that he should had shaved off the mustache.
In some cases it is so much better when the apple falls as further as possible from the tree.
You're kidding, right?
I had heard that Hitler painted before. But, I was never inspired to try and see what his artwork looked like. I just did. It is chilling that such bucolic paintings could come from such a hideous mind. Some of them are amateurish, but some are quite good. But, it repulses me to think anything he did was good. It is so disturbing to look at his paintings, I rather wish I hadn't.
Yes, this. It would be a pretty hard thing to have that in the family.
As an art history major in college, I had a prof who showed us architectural city paintings by Hitler. His point was that although well done, they had NO PEOPLE in them. Hitler just ignored the one thing the cities were built for. At least, that's what the prof told us. Kind of creepy....
So I think you can say it on FSU. Btw...I did not know this.
I've always wondered if there is a "correct" side to the nature vs nurture debate.
I have seen many city paintings with no people in it at all. I don't think they're creepy or disturbing or say anything much about the painters...
There is compelling evidence that crime does have a biological component - twin studies, adoption studies and studies on hormones and neurotransmitters have found that there is a genetic predisposition to criminality. And a theory called Evolutionary Neuroandrogenic (ENA) theory identifies twelve biological correlates of criminal behavior.
Of course, crime also has an environmental component, which is arguably strong, but in the extreme cases of Hitler and other psychopaths, I wonder if there isn't something seriously wrong their wiring. Could a loving, happy home have prevented Hilter from becoming Hitler?
If DNA proved that I was his grandchild I'd be horrified and perhaps terrified to procreate. And I don't know if I could accept any of the proceedings from Hitler's book.
As I like to think, genes are the potential, the environment does the rest. It's a rare person with such whacked-out genes that no supportive and loving environment can fix them, but I bet it does happen. IIRC one of the Columbine shooters was like this.
Many historian say it's highly doubtful. But who knows ?
This. I don't know when these photos were taken. If it was before Loret knew he might be Hitler's son, the coincidence is weird (except if it was a fashion shared by many at the time). If it was after, why choosing to trim one's facial hair in such a distinctive pattern ??
The point was that none of Hitler's paintings have people in them.
Well, there is one with a man sitting on a bridge. It is assumed to be a self portrait, though. There is an X above the man's head and the letters AH next to it.
Actually there are people in many of his paintings. Holley Colmes' art professor was wrong.
The architectural paintings are some of the better ones. The perspective is very good. Again, feeling creepy about saying something this evil monster did was good.
He could have gone another way. He could have been good. He made the choice.
I think his paintings look depressing, he had good technique but there is no real happiness there. There are people in some of them but they don't interact or look happy. The buildings are the focus.
If they are architectural paintings, the buildings are supposed to be the focus.
It's important to remember that he couldn't have perpetrated everything he did before the invasions and the war without the help of hundreds if not thousands of people. I think the desire to portray Hitler as almost inhuman is motivated by a need to separate him from "us."
I was thinking of another word, a la the song, as in "Hitler has only got one..." It has to rhyme with small.
And I think the art professor is being a bit ridiculous. Did he also think Winston Churchill hated cities as he mostly painted landscapes? There's an art show for you, the Churchill versus Hitler watercolor smackdown. (I think the summation is probably "they were both better off going into politics.")
Have you seen environmental design students show their work? It's just like that - there are people to show scale, but they're only portrayed to have rudimentary interaction with each other. The building IS the focus.
I'm quite sure none of them will grow up to dictators that kill millions of people because there are no people in their work.
It is as it always is - nothing is ever black and white when it comes to human beings. I feel quite comfortable in saying that Hitler was a great architectural artist and an evil bastard.
That's what some art scholars do.
Separate names with a comma.