1
   

Behind every evil man...

 
 
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 06:15 am
I post this report in today's 'Independent on Sunday' because I think, the story might be quite interesting - not just related to Braun and Hitler.

Quote:

The Eva Braun story: Behind every evil man...
She was a good Catholic girl. Her ordinariness was her defining quality. So why did she devote herself to Adolf Hitler? As a major new biography is published, Frances Wilson looks at her strange life - and death


Published: 12 March 2006

It wasn't much of a wedding; just the bride and groom and a few of his colleagues. Appropriately for a workaholic, the ceremony was held in his office without ceremony, but there was plenty of champagne in the store and nothing left now to do with it, so they drank a hearty toast to the bride. She would have preferred to wear a different dress of course, so it was all a bit disappointing, but she wasn't going to let silly things ruin the moment she had waited 15 years for.

He had said he couldn't marry because he was already "married to the destiny of Germany", but relations in that particular area having irrevocably broken down, he could consider himself a free man. But he left the wedding breakfast early, to dictate his last will and testament.

"There are two ways of judging a man's character," Adolf Hitler apparently told Ernst Hanfstaengl. "By the woman he marries and by the way he dies." Hitler married Eva Braun on 28 April, 1945 and 36 hours later they each took a cyanide capsule and he put a gun to his head. The 700 or so biographers of Hitler have judged his character on rather more than the selection of Eva as bride and cyanide as honeymoon, but it might be possible to say a great deal about Eva Braun based on her peculiar choices of spouse and suicide.

Never less than immaculately turned out, she had her hair done for the occasion, wore her husband's favourite black dress accessorised by a pair of Italian shoes and a diamond watch. She was Frau Hitler for one night only. Hitler, to whom she had been devoted for years, chose to thank her for the many "years of faithful friendship", as he put it in his last will, only as the Russians advanced in on Berlin and his fate was sealed. For some she is the epitome of the Tammy Wynette ideal: she stood by her man to the very last, choosing to die in the bunker as his partner rather than have any kind of future without him.

What kind of woman does this make her? And why are we so fascinated by the women who attach themselves to monsters? From Lady Macbeth to Carmilla Soprano, the claw-like nails of the gangster's moll have a grip on our imaginations. Their love humanises the man and dehumanises themselves.

"Every woman adores a fascist," wrote Sylvia Plath, and while a few of the Nazi party were undeniably dishy - Heydrich, for example - Plath's dictum does not explain the appeal to a pretty bourgeois girl like Eva Braun of the plain, prudish, emotionally immature, lower-middle class vegetarian artist who didn't even look good in a uniform. Power is an aphrodisiac. Myth has it that women were so drawn to Hitler's charisma that some would wet themselves or even reach orgasm during his speeches, but Eva did neither when she first met him: she was bored by politics, and he was not yet famous.

Traudl Junge, the secretary whose book about the last weeks of the Third Reich was turned into the award-winning film Downfall, has reawakened our interest in fascist women. Angela Lambert has now written a biography, The Lost Life of Eva Braun, which sets out to explore what motivated Eva Braun to devote herself to such a man and what he saw in her, the woman he would keep secret from the German nation for 17 years.

Lambert's subject is not an easy one. The Eva Braun who has until now only made sporadic and brief biographical appearances comes across as someone whose most remarkable quality was her emptiness, which is possibly why she is so difficult a figure to judge: was she morally culpable or a childlike innocent? There is no suggestion, as there is with those weird women who become engaged to murderers in prison, that she wanted to "change" Hitler. In Downfall, it is Eva's vacuity which is represented as evil; she feverishly dances the night away as Berlin crumbles.

She attempted to supplement this inner vacuum by a seemingly endless desire to acquire. Her love of shopping and collection of shoes is one of the only things Braun shares with other famous consorts of dictators. She was unconcerned with personal advancement or advancement of her family, spending her time instead floating about, changing her clothes seven times a day, waiting for her Führer to call.

Putting aside the total absence of ethical responsibility which characterised Germany as a whole, Eva Braun seems to have started out a nice enough girl. She was no partner in crime like Myra Hindley, says German historian Richard Overy, for the simple reason that she did not see her Adolf as a criminal. He was a hero, the saviour of Germany. It is not certain that she was ever a member of the Nazi party and it is unlikely, given the Führer's feelings about women interfering in his work, that she knew the details of what he was up to. But this is the problem with Eva: it is her bland indifference to the world her boyfriend was destroying that makes her such a sinister figure.

Eva Braun first met Hitler in October 1929. She was 17, chestnut haired and fresh-faced, one of three sisters from a conventional Roman Catholic family in Munich. She liked dancing, gymnastics, Hollywood movies, and romantic novels, and had the potential required for the ideal Nazi woman: kids, kitchen and church. After leaving her convent school, she began working for Heinrich Hoffman, official photographer to the Nazi party, and it was here that she met the 40-year-old Hitler. As the door opened, Eva happened to be standing on a ladder which gave them both a good vantage point: he looked at her legs, she looked down at his face, they each liked what they saw.
He was introduced by Hoffman as Herr Wolf, which was good enough for Eva who had never heard of Hitler anyway. To her, he seemed "a gentleman of a certain age with a funny moustache and carrying a big felt hat". To him, Heinrich Hoffman recollected, "she was just an attractive little thing, in whom, in spite of her inconsequential and feather-brained outlook - or perhaps just because of it - he found the type of relaxation and repose he sought... But never, in voice, look or gesture, did he behave in any way that suggested any deeper interest in her."

At first glance, the attraction between them seems based on no more than a direct appeal to one another's egos: "A highly intelligent man should always choose a primitive and stupid woman," the Führer explained - he liked young girls because he could mould them. Eva, ever vain, was flattered by the attentions of an Alpha male. But Hitler, it is important to remember, was already involved with his young niece, Geli Raubal, and he only began to take Eva seriously in late 1931, after Geli's suicide. Geli, according to Ian Kershaw, Hitler's most authoritative biographer, was the only woman about whom Hitler was ever to have intense feelings or to be emotionally dependent. Eva Braun was a classic rebound.

Her diary entries for 1935 suggest that even by this stage his interest in her had not shown signs of deepening. "Why do I have to go through all this?" she writes of his continual absences. "If only I had never set eyes on him! I am utterly miserable. I shall go out and buy some more sleeping powder and go into a dreamlike state."

Braun seems to have been in a dreamlike state most of the time. A depressive, she attempted suicide twice before Hitler set her up in a house of her own, but not even being on the Führer's payroll entitled her to public acknowledgement and she was bundled away whenever important guests arrived. She spent much of her time alone and bored to sobs. Her cousin, Gertrude Weisker, said she was "the unhappiest woman I ever met".

The story of Eva Braun is shrouded in speculation: did she enjoy any kind of sex life with Hitler? We know that he liked her to sport chamois leather underwear, but whether she was ever more than his fetish object is anyone's guess. Did he like her defecating on him, as Geli had done? Was she ever in love with Hitler, and how well did she actually know him? Did she realise how mad he had gone by the end? As for the question of why she put up with such a life and such a man: once she became his mistress she surely had no choice. Nobody left the Führer, unless, like Geli, you went out feet first.

The big question, however, is how much she knew about what was happening to the Jews. The representation of Eva as shallow, foolish, young and naive, like that of Traudl Junge in Downfall, seems a convenient way of containing the evil of Nazism by placing it firmly in the male camp. The refusal to ask questions, as Junge says, is itself a crime. "Eva Braun will prove a great disappointment to historians," predicted Albert Speer, Hitler's architect, but maybe she is interesting precisely because of her shallowness. As Oscar Wilde put it: "Only shallow people know themselves."

to be continued
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,417 • Replies: 26
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 06:19 am
continued
Quote:
BAD WIVES
Mrs Mao

Chairman Mao's fourth wife, the Westernised film actress Jiang Qing, became the most hated figure in the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Rumour had it that along with political enemies, she had rival actresses executed. She is said to have been jealous of Imelda Marcos's clothes and shoes on a visit. On trial in 1981 she said: "I was Mao's mad dog. Whoever he asked me to bite, I bit." She was imprisoned and died in 1991.

Mrs Marcos

Over Imelda's years as the wife of the Philippine president, the ex-beauty queen amassed 3,000 pairs of shoes, £6m worth of jewellery and several houses. The couple were accused of looting £2.6bn from their country's treasury. Marcos was ousted in 1986 and died three years later. Imelda, who lives in an opulent house in Manila but wears recycled plastic jewellery, has been ordered to pay billions of dollars in reparations to victims of human rights abuses.

Mrs Mugabe

Grace, Zimbabwe's first lady, nicknamed the "first shopper" is said to have spent £200m just on the fuel for shopping trips abroad in her private jet. Asked how she justified such extravagance while her people starved, she replied: "I have very narrow feet, so I wear only Ferragamo." She met Mugabe, 40 years her senior, when he was married to his first wife, Sally. No one knows what happened to Grace's first husband and child.

Mrs Ceauçescu

Elena, the Lady Macbeth of Romania, held various positions in Nicolai Ceauçescu's hated ruling Communist party. She is blamed for the birth-control ban that led to many babies ending up in orphanages, and denied the existence of Aids. Despite being virtually uneducated, she was showered with academic awards. Executed with her husband on 25 December, 1989.

Katy Guest
The end, source above
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 02:27 pm
Maybe these women were not politically oriented and just housewives. They got their man and the home was their domain. Remember feminism seems to occur in democratic countries. Germany went thru a rough period after the Versailles Treaty in which Germany was to pay for war damages, forbidden to develop weaponry, and very harsh conditions were imposed on them. Don't forget the worldwide Depression 1927-1933 after the Wall Street Crash in 1927 also affected Germany. Hitler bad as he was brought Germany out of the economic doldrums with his arms development.

As for the others Chairman Mao was a revolutionary. That would many women. Yes China was under Japanese occupation and the Communists and the forces under General Chiang Kai Shek drove out the Japanese. China was poor and far from a democracy. Feminism would be a luxury only a rich, democratic country could afford.

Mrs. Marcos married a dynastic political family. On the face it is a democracy but it is actually a dynastic country run by an elite aristocracy composed of a few families like the Marcos, Arroyos, Aquinos, etc.

Mrs. Mugabe married also a revolutionary. Women can't resist revolutionaries as they are potential heads of state. Also, Zimbabwe also came out of British Colonialism and white rule from the former Rhodesia. It is poor and as before only a rich, democratic country can afford the luxury of feminism.

Mrs. Ceaucescu married also a revolutionary as most heads of communist countries probably were. It was a communist dictatorship.

I can sympathize with these women who chose these 'attractive' men from a woman's perspective. They grew up in an age of compartmentalized mentality where women concerned themselves with family and home as most women do. It is no fault of theirs as to what their husbands do. They married these young men they never committed those atrocities.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 03:30 pm
Quote:
Grace, Zimbabwe's first lady, nicknamed the "first shopper" is said to have spent £200m just on the fuel for shopping trips abroad in her private jet. Asked how she justified such extravagance while her people starved, she replied: "I have very narrow feet, so I wear only Ferragamo."


But of course! Laughing
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 03:30 pm
sorry, that really isn't funny. couldn't help it though.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 06:44 pm
The article forgot Mrs. Milosevic...

Talk72000, there were plenty of wives of revolutionaries who weren't anything as evil as the women listed here...
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 07:16 pm
i'm a woman, and i don't busy myself with family and home. plus, i'd be damned if i didn't know my husband is killing people by the thousands. women are not dumb, Talk72000, no matter what social and cultural conditions they were brought up in.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:31 pm
The atrocities were committed years after their marriages. They have children and probably in their 40s or 50s. What are you going to do? You have no marketable skills to find a job in those impoverished countries? These women were born in 1930-50s in impoverished conditions. They didn't have college or university educations and the societies they came from were probably very patriarchal or even misogynistic. Yes in their hearts they might have been wounded. Have not people thru the ages been wounded and could nothing? Even feminism was suppressed until the western societies were wealthy and politically more sophisticated enough to develop a conscience to give in little step by little step. Yes, in the comfort of a democratic country it is easy to judge.

Dag, you were in India have you seen whole streets of prostitutes in Bombay? Did you know that many people have no homes to go to and sleep on the streets? As India is warm it is possible to survive this way. You tell me if they could improve their lives? There are beggars who multilate themselves so as to get some alms from passersby. Is it right to multilate oneself?
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:48 pm
nimh, I don't excuse them but they did not commit the atrocities. I would like to put the author in the shoes of those women she despises and see how she reacts?
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 09:02 pm
Ah, let's reverse the process and list the atrocities of British politicians. Why is Cherie Blair still married to Tony Blair. The situation in Iraq is an atrocity.

The British did untold damage to India. I don't see Katy Guest writing about the wives of the British prime ministers. See Brahmin about the starvation of the Bengalis.

How about the potato famine in Ireland. Manyof the Irish died yet the British did nothing. Now Katy Guest does not write about her own country's atrocities.

How about the bombing of Dresden in World War II. No questions about Mrs. Churchill by Katy Guest.

How about the opium trade in China which ruined thousands of Chinese. No word from Katy Guest.

How about the slave trade of West Africans by the British? No word from Katy Guest.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 09:08 pm
Interesting article, Walter.
Why, indeed? My hunch (& no, I don't believe this is restricted to women from earlier, simpler times, or caused by poverty or lack of education, necessarily) is that it's to do with acquiring (second hand) power & status. Happens all the time. What is that ((often)beautiful young woman) doing with that stuffy (sometimes old ... rich .. or powerful ... or both) guy? Power, privilege & wealth, I reckon. Certain types of women would think they've done very well indeed! Some might even have found a Hitler charismatic! Remember all those "upper-class" British women (& men!) who found him so entrancing & powerful?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 09:10 pm
I think the EVIL women would especially think they'd done very well! Laughing I mean, I'm sure that there are some who were just swept along by circumstances and who were perfectly nice themselves, but it seems like if there was any personal simpatico-ness at work, it'd make sense that an evil guy and an evil gal would hook up.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 09:58 pm
talk72000 wrote:

Dag, you were in India have you seen whole streets of prostitutes in Bombay? Did you know that many people have no homes to go to and sleep on the streets? As India is warm it is possible to survive this way. You tell me if they could improve their lives? There are beggars who multilate themselves so as to get some alms from passersby. Is it right to multilate oneself?


Yep, I've seen them. I also grew up in a totalitarian regime, mind you. I do have education, but most people that were in the dissident circles did not. Yet they were able to see what is right and what is wrong. You don't need anything for that. That's all I'm saying. I understand your point, I just think it is exaggerated.
We have mutilated beggars in Slovakia, too. Of course that's wrong, what does that have to do with dicators' wifes?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 10:07 pm
Walter wrote:
Mrs Ceauçescu

Elena, the Lady Macbeth of Romania, held various positions in Nicolai Ceauçescu's hated ruling Communist party. She is blamed for the birth-control ban that led to many babies ending up in orphanages, and denied the existence of Aids. Despite being virtually uneducated, she was showered with academic awards. Executed with her husband on 25 December, 1989.

I remember seeing the pictures of those orphaned babies that were put into cribs and never touched by human hands. They turned out to become emotionless robot-like people. Those pictures still haunt me today.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 10:13 pm
I've seen similar photographs, too, c.i. My response mirrors your exactly .
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 04:47 am
talk72000 wrote:
The atrocities were committed years after their marriages. They have children and probably in their 40s or 50s. What are you going to do?

My point was that if other wives of dictators did not engage in the kinds of practices that made these women particularly notorious, that suggests that it was hardly unavoidable for them, either.

Its not so much just that they remained married - on that count your argument perhaps would still make sense. Its about specific ways in which they themselves made things for their husband's populations that much more hurtful (just read up on any of these women).

Eg, if Ms Breshnev or Ms Pinochet could behave in reasonable unoffensive manner, why could Ms Ceausescu or Ms Mugabe not?
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 08:41 pm
Of course, I made a statement in saying they are not responsible for their husbands' atrocites however if they went out of their way to legitimize their husbands' evil programs then of course they are just as liable.

Then the same applies to Laura Bush, don't you think knowing GWB atrocities she went out of her way to get him re-elected?
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 09:26 pm
she married the fool to begin with. he wasn't much less evil before he became the president. not to mention that he lacks in intellect and had other problems. so yes, laura bush would certainly be more of a 'culprit' than a 'victim'.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 10:15 pm
She was a loser anyway. She ran thru a stop sign and drove into the car her boyfriend at the time was driving and killed him.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 11:32 pm
Shocked maybe she didn't like him that much.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Behind every evil man...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 05:09:45