Was Hitler at Kurt Eisner funeral?
SolomonW
procession for Kurt Eisner, a murdered Socialist, in 1919 carrying a red
armband. What is doubly amazing if Hitler did attend to show his respects
that Kurt Eisner, was born Jewish.
Much of the evidence rests on photos taken at the funeral procession.
Doing a net search, I finally found two pictures, which appear to be part
of a set of three taken at the funeral procession. Maybe someone else has
the last one or better ones, if so I think they might make interesting
viewing.
On both these photos Hitler is marked.
Photo 1,
http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/1235992511000/00763/hitler_gross_DW_Bay_763895g.jpg
Here is a picture of Hitler in 1919,
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/1919.jpg
do you think it is the same man? This picture of the man in the funeral
procession appears to be an older man.
Nor does the man appears to be part of the procession but possibly an
onlooker.
Finally, I see no armband anywhere. I note too that it appears the
photographs are in black and white. How does anyone show if there were
armbands that they were red in such photos?
Is this story a myth?
Don Phillipson
news:101yrufy0snr3.s9gkdbithza2$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Many historians probably most accept that Hitler was in the funeral
> procession for Kurt Eisner, a murdered Socialist, in 1919 carrying a red
> armband. What is doubly amazing if Hitler did attend to show his respects
> that Kurt Eisner, was born Jewish.
>
> Much of the evidence rests on photos taken at the funeral procession.
At this date Eisner was briefly premier of the state of
Bavaria (recently defeated in a general election and murdered
en route to the state parliament to resign.)
Biographers like Kershaw seem to agree:
1. At this date Hitler was employed by the army as a
spy (to report on veterans' organizations, socialists etc.)
2. Hitler attendd the funeral representing a veterans
organisation.
Extra evidence would be needed to judge whether Hitler
attended the funeral because he supported Eisner or
as part of his intellligence cover.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Michael C
>news:101yrufy0snr3.s9gkdbithza2$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>Many historians probably most accept that Hitler was in the funeral
>procession for Kurt Eisner, a murdered Socialist, in 1919 carrying a red
>armband. What is doubly amazing if Hitler did attend to show his respects
>that Kurt Eisner, was born Jewish.
I don't know anything about this particular case but I am very sceptical
about those photos actually being pictures of Hitler. The quality isn't
great and you could probably 'find' Hitler in many photos taken from that
era.
It reminds me of the photos that conspiracy theorists drag out as 'proof'
that the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, etc. If you look
hard enough through a large number of photos you can find anything you want.
dilore
> Is this story a myth?
Not necessarily. There is some evidence that Hitler became a radical
anti-Semite
first during in the latter half of 1919.
In 1907, after Hitler's mother had died, he expressed his gratitude to
the
Jewish family physician in writing, Hitler also sent him one of his
paintings.
Reinhold Hanisch, a friend of Hitler during the Vienna years, claimed
that
Hitler had no problems with the Jews during that time. Neither is
there any
evidence of anti-Semitism in Hitler's letters written during WW1.
Pjotr Sjabelskij-Bork and Alfred Rosenberg fled from the Reds from the
Baltic States
to Germany in January 1919. They had with them a copy of the 'The
Protocols of the
Elders of Zion', manufactured by a tsarist organisation. Rosenberg
joined the DAP
in early 1919 and introduced this and his own anti-Semitic works to
party leader Eckard,
who until then had not been anti-Semitic but anti-communist. Rosenberg
convinced
Eckard about a Jewish conspiracy, and Eckard in turn convinced Hitler
when he joined
the DAP in September 1919. The first anti-Semitic writing by Hitler
which has been
found appeared in that same month.
That's at least the theory outlined in Brigitte Hamann's 'Hitlers
Wien; Lehrjahre eines Diktators'.
dilore
I have to apologize for some factual errors in the previous posting:
1. Eckard was one of the founders of the DAP, and an influencial
leader within the party, but he was not the official party leader,
that was Anton Drexler.
2. Rosenberg went to Germany in late 1918, not Jan 1919.
3. Eckard might very well have been anti-Semitic before he met
Rosenberg
since he was a member of the Thule Society. The DAP's party programme
was not anti-Semitic, but anti-comunist, however. Originally.
4. Pjotr Sjabelskij-Bork/Piotr Nikolaevich Shabelsky-Bork did not
arrive together with Rosenberg in Germany, nor did he come from the
Batic
states.
Not that I fully believe in the afore-mentioned theory, but some facts
seem
to remain that make it plausible:
Piotr Nikolaevich Shabelsky-Bork was responsible for getting the
'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' translated into German.
Rosenberg introduced Eckard to that fabrication.
There is no real evidence that Hitler was anti-Semitic before he
joined
the DAP and had met with Eckard and Rosenberg. Kurt Eisner's funeral
was in february 1919, Hitler met Eckard in July 1919 at the earliest.
Eckard had a very stong influence upon Hitler.
Georg Schwarz
> On both these photos Hitler is marked.
I think it's two copies of the same photo.
--
Georg Schwarz http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
georg....@freenet.de +49 170 8768585
SolomonW
> There is no real evidence that Hitler was anti-Semitic before he
> joined the DAP and had met with Eckard and Rosenberg.
August Kubizek (1888-1956) was Hitler's best friend in his Vienna days,
claimed that Hitler was already an anti-semite before leaving Linz.
SolomonW
> Extra evidence would be needed to judge whether Hitler
> attended the funeral because he supported Eisner or
> as part of his intellligence cover.
I would like to see evidence that he was even there. However even if I do
accept that he was there it certainly not clear that he supported or even
approved of Eisner
SolomonW
> I think it's two copies of the same photo.
It certainly looks like it, the same people seem to be looking in the same
direction.
Stephen Graham
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:08:36 -0500, Don Phillipson wrote:
>
>> Extra evidence would be needed to judge whether Hitler
>> attended the funeral because he supported Eisner or
>> as part of his intellligence cover.
>
> I would like to see evidence that he was even there.
That photo is likely to be as best as you will ever get and it will be
moderately ambiguous. For what it's worth, I think the figure in
question is likely to be Hitler.
However, why do you care?
SolomonW
> That photo is likely to be as best as you will ever get and it will be
> moderately ambiguous. For what it's worth, I think the figure in
> question is likely to be Hitler.
A best can we agree that this photo is hardly proof.
> However, why do you care?
It may show much about Hitler's political development.
An interesting book to read on this subject is.
Hitler’s First War:
Adolf Hitler,
the Men of the List Regiment,
and the First World War
By Thomas Weber
Stephen Graham
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:09:48 -0500, Stephen Graham wrote:
>> However, why do you care?
>
> It may show much about Hitler's political development.
I think it shows precisely nothing about Hitler's political development.
We already knew that Hitler was a member of the Munich garrison at this
time. What activities units of the garrison were involved in doesn't
imply any commitment by individual members beyond the basic adherence to
the military.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> Many historians probably most accept that Hitler was in the funeral
> procession for Kurt Eisner, a murdered Socialist, in 1919 carrying a red
> armband.
Given Eisner took over the government by force having organised the so
called "Gernan Revolution" in Bavaria, and this act led to the muder
of government officials, I wouldn't call Eisners assasination a
'murder'. Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley, his assasin, incidently
had a Jewish mother: Anton's mother, Emily Freiin von Oppenheim, was
from the rich, Jewish, Oppenheim bankers family.
SolomonW
You are of course entitled to your views.
I think if we knew why Hitler went to Kurt Eisner it might show a lot about
his thinking in 1919 and though that his political development
> We already knew that Hitler was a member of the Munich garrison at this
> time. What activities units of the garrison were involved in doesn't
> imply any commitment by individual members beyond the basic adherence to
> the military.
I will note that in 1919, much of Hitler's activities were voluntary.
Alan Meyer
I believe that racism and anti-semitism were almost universal in most
parts of the world at that time. This was true in the U.S., most of
Europe, and in many other countries, including Japan, China, and
elsewhere. Violent racism and anti-semitism, and officially sponsored
racism and anti-semitism both have a long history in Europe, as did
violent racism in the U.S. It is thought, for example, that 90,000 Jews
were killed in the pogroms of 1648 - an extraordinary number (see
_Jewish History: 1650-1980_ by Lloyd P. Gartner)
Children grew up with racist and anti-semitic attitudes. Such attitudes
were perfectly respectable and were common even among educated people
and certainly among the upper classes. Islands of egalitarianism, such
as in Paris, were the exception, not the rule.
So it would be very surprising if Hitler grew up free of anti-semitism.
However there is a big leap between prejudicial dislike or disdain for
some group and active hatred to the point of wishing to do harm to
people in that group simply because they belong to the group. Perhaps
that is the leap that Hitler took in 1919.
Alan
Stephen Graham
>> We already knew that Hitler was a member of the Munich garrison at this
>> time. What activities units of the garrison were involved in doesn't
>> imply any commitment by individual members beyond the basic adherence to
>> the military.
>
> I will note that in 1919, much of Hitler's activities were voluntary.
The funeral parade for the assassinated Minister-President of Bavaria
doesn't fall into voluntary actions.
Don Phillipson
>> That photo is likely to be as best as you will ever get and it will be
>> moderately ambiguous. For what it's worth, I think the figure in
>> question is likely to be Hitler.
>
> A best can we agree that this photo is hardly proof.
This comment points out how we can be much more specific.
1. A photo and a document are items of evidence.
Evidence like this can be evaluated for both authenticity
and truth, which are separate topics. (An authentic
document may include a falsehood or an error. The
truth of what it may often be confirmed (or disproved)
by other, unrelated items of evidence.)
E.g. deciding whether someone in a (proved authentic)
photo is Hitler or someone else requires comparison
with other photos of how Hitler appeared (and dressed)
at exactly this date, a timetable of where he was and
when (in case there is evidence that on that date he
was miles away) and so on. Judging by eye is an
opinion, but by itself unlikely to "prove" anything.
2. "Proof" is either a final (human) judgment or the
formal chain of (both) evidence and reasoning that
supports that judgment.
In the particular case that attending a state funeral
might show a lot about Hitler's thought in 1919, we
need plenty more evidence about why people attend
funerals, how free Hitler then was to plan his day,
and so on. If our topic is Hitler's thought (as distinct
from his actions) we need rules to discriminate
motives, e.g. whether Hitler attended as a demonstration
of sympathy or to identify (as enemies) others offering
sympathy. We may not assume race had anything to do
with Hitler's free decision to attend Eisner's funeral
unless we also have reliable evidence of Hitler's ideas
at this date. (We may not use this photo as evidence,
because we should not assume the thing we are trying
to test or prove.)
SolomonW
> E.g. deciding whether someone in a (proved authentic)
> photo is Hitler or someone else requires comparison
> with other photos of how Hitler appeared (and dressed)
> at exactly this date, a timetable of where he was and
> when (in case there is evidence that on that date he
> was miles away) and so on. Judging by eye is an
> opinion, but by itself unlikely to "prove" anything.
I am used to a legal and commercial world where the requirements for proof
are much less than in science. The idea is a reasonable doubt. So I am not
looking to prove anything as such. What I am doing is casting doubt on the
evidence presented.
I showed this picture, which allegedly is Hitler at Kurt Eisner funeral to
my wife who is much better than me at identifying people.
She immediately announced it is not Hitler, the shoulders are not right and
the forehead is the wrong shape. This man is also bigger than anyone else
in the picture, Hitler was not that big, he was 5'8". Furthermore, the man
looks older than Hitler in 1919.
You are quite welcome to make our own decision, here are some photos of
Hitler from the net in 1919.
http://www.bredalsparken.dk/~soren-kretzschmer/Hitler_i_1919.jpg
http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/hitler-480.jpg
http://www.muenchen.de/cms/prod1/mde/_de/rubriken/Rathaus/55_kult/25_museen/nsdokumentationszentrum/25_themengeschichtspfad/01_nationalsozialismus/img/04a.jpg
I think there is a reasonable doubt that this picture is not Hitler.
Note it maybe that Hitler was there and this is not his picture, but this I
believe is another question.
SolomonW
> The funeral parade for the assassinated Minister-President of Bavaria
> doesn't fall into voluntary actions.
Why do you say that please?
Stephen Graham
To the best of my knowledge, units of the Munich garrison were required
to participate in the parade. Thus Hitler, as a member of a garrison
unit, was required to participate.
SolomonW
> to participate in the parade. Thus Hitler, as a member of a garrison
> unit, was required to participate.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
If so, why would Hitler later deny several times that he attended the
funeral march of Kurt Eisner?
narrl...@hotmail.com
Mmmmmm . . . because Hitler thought it better to deny that he attended
the funeral march of Kurt Eisner. He was known to lie from time to
time, after all.
Narr
narrl...@hotmail.com
If the moderator will indulge a self-reply:
Or, maybe he -didn't- attend the funeral march of Kurt Eisner.
Either way, like Stephen I don't think anything important can be
proven EVEN IF you can prove he was or wasn't there.
Narr