| 翻訳と辞書 |
| The Psychopathic God ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler''''' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243
''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler'' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.
It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)
==Synopsis==
The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern to
those interested in his personality. It is also a matter of
considerable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well are
emphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at all
persuaded either of its existence or its importance.
The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversion
was made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuable
psychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 by
Dr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinical
psychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,
reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrant
sexual activity:
It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derives
sexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate or
defecate on him.
Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor of
History at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion of
Hitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totally
unsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,
“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.
It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with an
emotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite different
types of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimony
which is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, or
factual. This sort of historical fact is important and should be
evaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,
psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled with
discernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped to
interpret such data may find it advisable to consult professional
psychologists.
With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditional
kind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largely
from a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSS
officials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he had
learned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He said
that “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationship
with her famous uncle, she said:
Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then she
would have to squat over his face where he could examine her at close
range and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached its
peak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him his
sexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremely
disgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.
One might well raise questions about the reliability of Otto
Strasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonder
whether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimate
matters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that other
informants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony about
Hitler’s perversion.
Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, a
Catholic priest provided evidence which tends to support their
findings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitler
and helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929
Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter which
explicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.
Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she never
received it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a man
named Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivably
from political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentric
named J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who was
a close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collected
political memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling with
cartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, political
advertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitler
sent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him to
buy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that he
needed () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of Father
Stempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. He
demanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for his
beloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found the
money to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found in
the archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the Hoover
Institution and in the National Archives.
At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went through
Rehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, who
gave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helped
make Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscure
figures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to his
confidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of his
personal will of 2 May 1938.
There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support Father
Stempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-
called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people who
were in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle was
found dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shots
through his heart.
The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent to
women is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, we
can be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, six
committed suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter tried
to hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braun
attempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was a
successful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. Unity
Mitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted by
political reasons.
But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves to
support a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilic
perversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind of
historic fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughly
consistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reported
in the literature.
Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistic
traits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed Phyliis
Greenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of all
perversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.
What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayed
moods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochistic
feelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would
“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …
and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, he
lacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: he
said that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up his
fantasies about her.
As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed a
tendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement of
sadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speeches
he revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,
submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,
typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better and
stronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.
When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, an
experienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression of
Hitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startling
is King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he was
only that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweet
little blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearned
to be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful
(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kong
is thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.
Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him and
tighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rather
complex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealed
in the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playing
games involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is a
form of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is also
a way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of death
by strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients reveal
incestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through the
masochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let us
emphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitute
suicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.
Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried over
directly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habitually
carried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol of
sadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitute
figures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherly
women. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involving
women who were about as young as Klara had been when she married
Alois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearly
that when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,
Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. When
she refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,
apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, he
whipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.
Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,
where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife of
the proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde who
towered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly to
attract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as he
swung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignored
him, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spoke
loudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,
the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about him
with his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christ
when He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by the
moneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whip
and scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, the
close friend and admirer of Hitler.
Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–
according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whipped
himself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Even
after he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered the
whip to be his personal symbol.
There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked to
talk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. The
German film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited to
spend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described in
great detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.
Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemned
himself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,
and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene became
intolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.
This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”
Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistent
with a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism are
united. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitler
degraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with his
victims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,
as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.
Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,
filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasure
can be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retention
or expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himself
enemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similar
to those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,
find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have another
person defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction he
got from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to have
been his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriately
shocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was made
from Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with feces
and filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctilious
personal cleanliness.
He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularly
interested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizek
reported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved
() customs”.
He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that he
used against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:
denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projection
can be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, he
accused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in the
face of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographs
depicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.
He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: they
must be of Jewish extraction.
In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point of
lashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threat
to society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to the
Gestapo and severely punished:
Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn into
homicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young they
may be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongest
possible punishment of these antisocial elements.
Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be true
about the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism we
have found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was first
to notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantile
sexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.
Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversion
involves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhood
memories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearly
qualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by the
distinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were to
attempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she has
written, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-child
relationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomes
most significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.
Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexual
perverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we have
noted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for having
had “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutely
spotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connection
suggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an American
analyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: he
displayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presence
while he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role of
his mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.
In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytic
theory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients with
perversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipus
complexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichel
concludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which are
derivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. Adolf
Hitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentioned
perhaps too often.
If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipal
problems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are the
marks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.
But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were so
intense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,
psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems dating
from his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scene
trauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence of
genital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,
something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse by
redirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.
As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutely
certain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must be
admitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis are
correct in saying that they can find evidence to support their
assertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is also
based on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simply
does not fit the psychological data.
In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had young
ladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he had
this perversion not because the traditional type of evidence is
completely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced by
psychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know about
Hitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression of
the fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; it
expressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishment
and humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest in
the concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…
~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,
1977, pp.237–243
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「'''''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler''''' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243」の詳細全文を読む
'The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler'' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243
''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler'' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.
It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)
==Synopsis==
The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern to
those interested in his personality. It is also a matter of
considerable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well are
emphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at all
persuaded either of its existence or its importance.
The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversion
was made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuable
psychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 by
Dr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinical
psychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,
reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrant
sexual activity:
It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derives
sexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate or
defecate on him.
Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor of
History at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion of
Hitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totally
unsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,
“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.
It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with an
emotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite different
types of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimony
which is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, or
factual. This sort of historical fact is important and should be
evaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,
psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled with
discernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped to
interpret such data may find it advisable to consult professional
psychologists.
With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditional
kind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largely
from a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSS
officials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he had
learned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He said
that “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationship
with her famous uncle, she said:
Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then she
would have to squat over his face where he could examine her at close
range and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached its
peak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him his
sexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremely
disgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.
One might well raise questions about the reliability of Otto
Strasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonder
whether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimate
matters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that other
informants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony about
Hitler’s perversion.
Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, a
Catholic priest provided evidence which tends to support their
findings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitler
and helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929
Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter which
explicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.
Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she never
received it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a man
named Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivably
from political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentric
named J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who was
a close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collected
political memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling with
cartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, political
advertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitler
sent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him to
buy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that he
needed () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of Father
Stempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. He
demanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for his
beloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found the
money to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found in
the archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the Hoover
Institution and in the National Archives.
At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went through
Rehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, who
gave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helped
make Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscure
figures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to his
confidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of his
personal will of 2 May 1938.
There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support Father
Stempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-
called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people who
were in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle was
found dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shots
through his heart.
The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent to
women is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, we
can be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, six
committed suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter tried
to hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braun
attempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was a
successful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. Unity
Mitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted by
political reasons.
But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves to
support a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilic
perversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind of
historic fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughly
consistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reported
in the literature.
Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistic
traits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed Phyliis
Greenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of all
perversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.
What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayed
moods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochistic
feelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would
“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …
and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, he
lacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: he
said that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up his
fantasies about her.
As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed a
tendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement of
sadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speeches
he revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,
submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,
typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better and
stronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.
When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, an
experienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression of
Hitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startling
is King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he was
only that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweet
little blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearned
to be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful
(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kong
is thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.
Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him and
tighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rather
complex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealed
in the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playing
games involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is a
form of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is also
a way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of death
by strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients reveal
incestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through the
masochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let us
emphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitute
suicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.
Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried over
directly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habitually
carried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol of
sadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitute
figures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherly
women. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involving
women who were about as young as Klara had been when she married
Alois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearly
that when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,
Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. When
she refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,
apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, he
whipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.
Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,
where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife of
the proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde who
towered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly to
attract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as he
swung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignored
him, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spoke
loudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,
the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about him
with his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christ
when He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by the
moneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whip
and scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, the
close friend and admirer of Hitler.
Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–
according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whipped
himself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Even
after he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered the
whip to be his personal symbol.
There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked to
talk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. The
German film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited to
spend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described in
great detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.
Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemned
himself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,
and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene became
intolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.
This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”
Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistent
with a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism are
united. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitler
degraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with his
victims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,
as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.
Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,
filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasure
can be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retention
or expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himself
enemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similar
to those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,
find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have another
person defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction he
got from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to have
been his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriately
shocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was made
from Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with feces
and filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctilious
personal cleanliness.
He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularly
interested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizek
reported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved
() customs”.
He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that he
used against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:
denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projection
can be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, he
accused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in the
face of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographs
depicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.
He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: they
must be of Jewish extraction.
In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point of
lashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threat
to society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to the
Gestapo and severely punished:
Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn into
homicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young they
may be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongest
possible punishment of these antisocial elements.
Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be true
about the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism we
have found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was first
to notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantile
sexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.
Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversion
involves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhood
memories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearly
qualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by the
distinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were to
attempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she has
written, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-child
relationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomes
most significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.
Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexual
perverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we have
noted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for having
had “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutely
spotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connection
suggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an American
analyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: he
displayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presence
while he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role of
his mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.
In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytic
theory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients with
perversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipus
complexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichel
concludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which are
derivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. Adolf
Hitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentioned
perhaps too often.
If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipal
problems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are the
marks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.
But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were so
intense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,
psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems dating
from his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scene
trauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence of
genital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,
something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse by
redirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.
As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutely
certain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must be
admitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis are
correct in saying that they can find evidence to support their
assertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is also
based on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simply
does not fit the psychological data.
In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had young
ladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he had
this perversion not because the traditional type of evidence is
completely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced by
psychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know about
Hitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression of
the fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; it
expressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishment
and humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest in
the concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…
~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,
1977, pp.237–243
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「'''''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler''''' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243」の詳細全文を読む
' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243
''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler'' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.
It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)
==Synopsis==
The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern to
those interested in his personality. It is also a matter of
considerable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well are
emphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at all
persuaded either of its existence or its importance.
The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversion
was made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuable
psychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 by
Dr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinical
psychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,
reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrant
sexual activity:
It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derives
sexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate or
defecate on him.
Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor of
History at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion of
Hitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totally
unsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,
“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.
It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with an
emotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite different
types of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimony
which is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, or
factual. This sort of historical fact is important and should be
evaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,
psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled with
discernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped to
interpret such data may find it advisable to consult professional
psychologists.
With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditional
kind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largely
from a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSS
officials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he had
learned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He said
that “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationship
with her famous uncle, she said:
Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then she
would have to squat over his face where he could examine her at close
range and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached its
peak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him his
sexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremely
disgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.
One might well raise questions about the reliability of Otto
Strasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonder
whether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimate
matters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that other
informants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony about
Hitler’s perversion.
Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, a
Catholic priest provided evidence which tends to support their
findings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitler
and helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929
Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter which
explicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.
Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she never
received it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a man
named Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivably
from political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentric
named J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who was
a close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collected
political memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling with
cartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, political
advertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitler
sent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him to
buy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that he
needed () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of Father
Stempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. He
demanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for his
beloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found the
money to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found in
the archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the Hoover
Institution and in the National Archives.
At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went through
Rehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, who
gave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helped
make Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscure
figures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to his
confidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of his
personal will of 2 May 1938.
There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support Father
Stempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-
called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people who
were in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle was
found dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shots
through his heart.
The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent to
women is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, we
can be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, six
committed suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter tried
to hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braun
attempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was a
successful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. Unity
Mitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted by
political reasons.
But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves to
support a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilic
perversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind of
historic fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughly
consistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reported
in the literature.
Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistic
traits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed Phyliis
Greenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of all
perversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.
What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayed
moods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochistic
feelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would
“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …
and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, he
lacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: he
said that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up his
fantasies about her.
As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed a
tendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement of
sadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speeches
he revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,
submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,
typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better and
stronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.
When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, an
experienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression of
Hitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startling
is King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he was
only that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweet
little blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearned
to be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful
(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kong
is thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.
Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him and
tighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rather
complex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealed
in the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playing
games involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is a
form of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is also
a way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of death
by strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients reveal
incestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through the
masochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let us
emphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitute
suicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.
Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried over
directly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habitually
carried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol of
sadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitute
figures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherly
women. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involving
women who were about as young as Klara had been when she married
Alois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearly
that when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,
Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. When
she refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,
apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, he
whipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.
Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,
where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife of
the proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde who
towered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly to
attract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as he
swung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignored
him, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spoke
loudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,
the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about him
with his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christ
when He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by the
moneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whip
and scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, the
close friend and admirer of Hitler.
Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–
according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whipped
himself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Even
after he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered the
whip to be his personal symbol.
There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked to
talk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. The
German film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited to
spend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described in
great detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.
Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemned
himself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,
and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene became
intolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.
This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”
Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistent
with a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism are
united. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitler
degraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with his
victims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,
as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.
Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,
filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasure
can be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retention
or expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himself
enemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similar
to those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,
find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have another
person defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction he
got from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to have
been his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriately
shocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was made
from Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with feces
and filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctilious
personal cleanliness.
He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularly
interested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizek
reported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved
() customs”.
He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that he
used against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:
denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projection
can be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, he
accused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in the
face of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographs
depicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.
He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: they
must be of Jewish extraction.
In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point of
lashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threat
to society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to the
Gestapo and severely punished:
Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn into
homicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young they
may be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongest
possible punishment of these antisocial elements.
Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be true
about the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism we
have found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was first
to notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantile
sexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.
Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversion
involves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhood
memories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearly
qualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by the
distinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were to
attempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she has
written, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-child
relationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomes
most significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.
Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexual
perverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we have
noted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for having
had “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutely
spotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connection
suggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an American
analyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: he
displayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presence
while he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role of
his mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.
In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytic
theory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients with
perversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipus
complexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichel
concludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which are
derivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. Adolf
Hitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentioned
perhaps too often.
If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipal
problems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are the
marks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.
But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were so
intense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,
psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems dating
from his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scene
trauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence of
genital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,
something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse by
redirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.
As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutely
certain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must be
admitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis are
correct in saying that they can find evidence to support their
assertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is also
based on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simply
does not fit the psychological data.
In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had young
ladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he had
this perversion not because the traditional type of evidence is
completely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced by
psychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know about
Hitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression of
the fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; it
expressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishment
and humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest in
the concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…
~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,
1977, pp.237–243
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「'''''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler''''' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243」の詳細全文を読む
'The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler'' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243">ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「'''''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler''''' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243」の詳細全文を読む
' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243">ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「'''''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler''''' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243」の詳細全文を読む
'The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler'' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243">ウィキペディアで「'''''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler''''' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243」の詳細全文を読む
' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243">ウィキペディアで「''The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler''''' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243」の詳細全文を読む
'The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler'' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243」の詳細全文を読む
' is a 1977 book written by Robert G. L. Waite. It was republished in 1993 by Da Capo Press of New York.It is a psychohistorical examination of German dictator Adolf Hitler explores the events "by documenting accounts of his behaviour, beliefs, tastes, fears and compulsions." (Da Capo Press, publisher)==Synopsis==The question of Hitler’s sexual perversion is a matter of concern tothose interested in his personality. It is also a matter ofconsiderable dispute. Many responsible observers who knew him well areemphatic that there was no perversion: later historians are not at allpersuaded either of its existence or its importance.The first published statement that Hitler may have had a perversionwas made in an article appearing in 1971 and drawing on a valuablepsychological investigation of Hitler prepared for the OSS in 1943 byDr. Walter C. Langer and other American psychoanalysts and clinicalpsychologists. This wartime report, subsequently published in 1972,reached the following conclusion with regard to Hitler’s aberrantsexual activity:It is an extreme form of masochism in which the individual derivessexual gratification from the act of having a woman urinate ordefecate on him.Historians were not slow in responding. The Regius Professor ofHistory at Oxford University, for example, found the discussion ofHitler’s perversion outrageous, irrelevant, and totallyunsubstantiated. He concluded roundly and with conspicuous confidence,“There is not a shred of evidence on any of these matters”.It is important to emphasize that a historian dealing with anemotionally disturbed subject is obliged to use two quite differenttypes of evidence. There is, of course, the familiar kind of testimonywhich is often thought of as being “solid”, objective, rational, orfactual. This sort of historical fact is important and should beevaluated very carefully. But another category of evidence,psychological data, may prove equally valuable when handled withdiscernment. Historians who feel professionally ill equipped tointerpret such data may find it advisable to consult professionalpsychologists.With regard to Hitler’s alleged sexual perversion, the traditionalkind of direct evidence is not entirely convincing. It comes largelyfrom a former intimate of Hitler’s, Otto Strasser, who told OSSofficials during an interview in Montreal on 13 May 1943 that he hadlearned about Hitler’s perversion from Geli Raubal herself. He saidthat “after much urging” concerning the nature of her relationshipwith her famous uncle, she said:Hitler made her undress … He would lie down on the floor. Then shewould have to squat over his face where he could examine her at closerange and this made him very excited. When the excitement reached itspeak, Hitler demanded that Geli urinate on him and that gave him hissexual pleasure. Geli said the whole performance was extremelydisgusting to her and … it gave her no gratification.One might well raise questions about the reliability of OttoStrasser’s testimony on anything. In particular, one might well wonderwhether Geli would be likely to confide in him over such intimatematters. Langer and his associates, however, reported that otherinformants–whose names are not mentioned–gave similar testimony aboutHitler’s perversion.Long before Dr. Langer and his colleagues drew up their report, aCatholic priest provided evidence which tends to support theirfindings. This priest, Father Bernhard Stempfle, had befriended Hitlerand helped edit Mein Kampf for publication. He asserted that in 1929Hitler had written Geli a shockingly compromising letter whichexplicitly mentioned his masochistic and coprophilic inclinations.Geli no doubt would have been repelled by the letter, but she neverreceived it. It fell into the hands of Hitler’s landlady’s son, a mannamed Rudolph. Hitler was saved from embarrassment–and conceivablyfrom political disaster–by a remarkable person, a gnomelike eccentricnamed J. F. M. Rehse. For years this indefatigable little man, who wasa close friend and confidant of Father Stempfle, had collectedpolitical memorabilia. His rooms were packed to the ceiling withcartons containing copies of official decrees, pictures, politicaladvertisements, and thousands of newspaper clippings. One day Hitlersent the Party treasurer, Franz X. Schwarz, to Rehse and asked him tobuy Hitler’s incriminating letter from Rudolph with the excuse that heneeded () for his collection. But Rehse, on the advice of FatherStempfle, saw an opportunity to profit from Hitler’s embarrassment. Hedemanded that the Nazi leader assume financial responsibility for hisbeloved collection. Hitler yielded to this extortion and found themoney to underwrite the Rehse collection, which still may be found inthe archives of the Nazi Party, now largely on microfilm in the HooverInstitution and in the National Archives.At any rate, the compromising letter–which probably never went throughRehse’s hands at all–was delivered by Father Stempfle to Schwarz, whogave it to Hitler. It may well be that this service to Hitler helpedmake Schwarz one of the more influential though publicly obscurefigures within the Nazi Party. Hitler further testified to hisconfidence in Schwarz when he made him the sole executor of hispersonal will of 2 May 1938.There is another bit of evidence that would seem to support FatherStempfle’s story of Hitler’s perversion. In June 1934, during the so-called Blood Purge, when Hitler settled his accounts with people whowere in a position to embarrass him politically, Father Stempfle wasfound dead in the forest of Herlaching near Munich, with three shotsthrough his heart.The idea that Hitler had a sexual perversion particularly abhorrent towomen is further supported by a statistic: of the seven women who, wecan be reasonably sure, had intimate relations with Hitler, sixcommitted suicide or seriously attempted to do so. Mimi Reiter triedto hang herself in 1928; Geli Raubal shot herself in 1931; Eva Braunattempted suicide in 1932 and again in 1935; Frau Inge Ley was asuccessful suicide, as were Renate Mueller and Suzi Liptauer. UnityMitford’s attempted suicide seems clearly to have been prompted bypolitical reasons.But these are only shreds of evidence, insufficient in themselves tosupport a conclusion that Hitler had a masochistic, coprophilicperversion. More important to this conclusion is a different kind ofhistoric fact: he displayed other behavior patterns thoroughlyconsistent with this kind of perversion, which is quite well reportedin the literature.Specialists in these matters have shown, first, that sadomasochistictraits are a prerequisite for such a perversion. Indeed PhyliisGreenacre has concluded that they “are characteristic of allperversions”. Hitler’s sadism scarcely requires further documentation.What is less widely recognized is that from adolescence he displayedmoods of deep depression and self-loathing which indicate masochisticfeelings. As his worried friend August Kubizek noted, he would“torment himself” and wallow “deeper and deeper in self-criticism …and self-accusation”, until finally, after his mother’s funeral, helacerated himself with the most awful punishment he could devise: hesaid that he would “give up Stefanie!”–that is, he would give up hisfantasies about her.As we noted in discussing his latent homosexuality, Hitler showed atendency to stereotype male and female traits which is a complement ofsadomasochistic impulses. In private conversation and public speecheshe revealed how constantly his mind swung between masochism (weakness,submission) and sadism (brutality, strength, mastery). He would speak,typically, of the necessity to exalt “the victory of the better andstronger and to demand submission of the worse and weaker“.When told of Hitler’s infatuation with the movie King Kong, anexperienced analyst found the fact to be a revealing expression ofHitler’s sadomasochism: “The image for me that is the most startlingis King Kong. It’s easy to read Hitler as the huge gorilla–but he wasonly that in part. He was also, at the same time, the helpless, sweetlittle blonde. He was so infatuated with the image because he yearnedto be helpless (masochistic), to be overwhelmed by the powerful(sadistic) ape who at the same time sought to protect him. King Kongis thus a very effective expression of his sadomasochism”.Hitler’s childlike game of having his valet tie his tie for him andtighten it while he counted to ten is, psychologically, a rathercomplex phenomenon. It speaks of many things. One of them is revealedin the research of psychoanalysts who have discovered that playinggames involving ropes around the neck–or, presumably, neckties–is aform of eroticism and masturbation. As noted earlier, the game is alsoa way of acting out, and thus rendering more innocuous, fears of deathby strangulation or suffocation. Often in these games patients revealincestuous desires and Oedipal guilt, which are “assauged through themasochistic brush with death”. But for present purposes let usemphasize that one of Hitler’s favorite games was a kind of substitutesuicide, the ultimate masochistic resolution.Hitler’s generalized sadomasochistic impulses were carried overdirectly to his conduct with women. The whip that he habituallycarried for many years is, of course, a traditional symbol ofsadomasochism. Hitler’s whips were associated with mother substitutefigures; his three favorite ones were all given to him by motherlywomen. We also know that he used whips violently in scenes involvingwomen who were about as young as Klara had been when she marriedAlois. Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter, for example, remembered clearlythat when she was a 15-year-old in pigtails and flannel nightgown,Hitler, who was visiting their home, asked for a good-night kiss. Whenshe refused, he beat his hand viciously with his whip. In 1926,apparently in order to impress Mimi Reiter, a 16-year-old girl, hewhipped his dog so savagely that she was shocked by his brutality.Another curious epidsode took place in June 1923 in Berchtesgaden,where he was staying at the Pension Moritz. Frau Büchner, the wife ofthe proprietor, was a striking, six-foot-tall, blond Brünnehilde whotowered over Hitler and inflamed him sexually. He tried repeatedly toattract her attention by striding up and down in front of her as heswung his whip and beat it against his thigh. The more she ignoredhim, the more agitated he became. Almost beside himself, he spokeloudly about an experience he had had in Berlin which showed, he said,the decadence and moral depravity of the Jews. As he lashed about himwith his whip, he cried, “I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christwhen He came to His Father’s temple and found it taken it over by themoneychangers. I can well imagine how He felt when He seized a whipand scourged them out”. This story was told by Dietrich Eckart, theclose friend and admirer of Hitler.Thus, while Hitler used his whip in lashing out at others, he also–according to this testimony and that of his private pilot–whippedhimself, beating his boots or thighs in moments of excitement. Evenafter he stopped carrying it, he told his valet that he considered thewhip to be his personal symbol.There is other evidence of Hitler’s masochistic impulses. He liked totalk about physical punishments and he liked to act them out. TheGerman film star Renate Mueller reported that when she was invited tospend the night with Hitler in the Chancellery, he first described ingreat detail the medieval and Gestapo techniques of torturing victims.Then, after they were undressed, Hitler “lay on the floor … condemnedhimself as unworthy, heaped all kinds of accusations on his own head,and just groveled around in an agonizing manner. The scene becameintolerable to her, and she finally acceded to his wishes to kick him.This excited him greatly; he became more and more excited.”Hitler’s sadomasochistic tendencies, we are suggesting, are consistentwith a coprophilic perversion, for in it masochism and sadism areunited. By having young ladies defecate or urinate on his head, Hitlerdegraded both himself and others. In this act he could unite with hisvictims, “who became the personification of (own ) depraved self,as the persecutor who attacks a part of himself in his victims”.Hitler’s fixation on the anus, and his special interest in feces,filth and urine coincide with this sexual perversion. Sexual pleasurecan be stimulated by the rectal mucous membrane and by the retentionor expulsion of the feces. We know that Hitler liked to give himselfenemas; it seems quite possible that his sexual behavior was similarto those patients with anal interests who, Otto Fenichel has shown,find it pleasurable “to defecate on another person or to have anotherperson defecate on oneself”. Hitler apparently enjoyed the reaction hegot from women when he talked about “sewer water”, which seems to havebeen his euphemism for urine. His secretaries were appropriatelyshocked, for example, when he told them that their lipstick was madefrom Parisian Abwasser. To compensate for this fascination with fecesand filth, Hitler practiced, as we have noted, the most punctiliouspersonal cleanliness.He enjoyed talking about sex in general, but he was particularlyinterested in deviate sexual behavior. In a private letter, Kubizekreported that his friend chattered “by the hour” about “depraved() customs”.He employed the same psychological defenses against perversion that heused against feelings of latent homosexuality and fears of Jewishness:denial, projection, and punishment. Only two examples of projectioncan be given here. In one particularly revealing turn of phrase, heaccused Jewish journalism and literature of “splashing filth in theface of humanity”. And his immediate reaction on seeing photographsdepicting gross types of deviate sexual activity is worth remembering.He said that the males involved could not possibly be Germans: theymust be of Jewish extraction.In a table conversation of 22 May 1942, he made a special point oflashing out against sexual deviants, insisting that they were a threatto society and “public decency”. They should all be handed over to theGestapo and severely punished:Experience shows that unnatural offenders generally turn intohomicidal maniacs; they must be rendered harmless however young theymay be. I have therefore always been in favor of the strongestpossible punishment of these antisocial elements.Other aspects of Hitler’s personality also fit what we know to be trueabout the psychopathology of sexual perversion. The infantilism wehave found in him is one necessary ingredient. For as Freud was firstto notice, “perverted sexuality is nothing else but infantilesexuality, magnified and separated into its component parts”.Infantilism is clearly marked when, as with Hitler, the perversioninvolves a reversion to the anal stage. Hitler’s harrowing childhoodmemories of his primal scene experience and his monorchism clearlyqualify as prerequisites for adult perversion, as set forth by thedistinguished child psychoanalyst Phyllis Greenacre. “If I were toattempt a formula describing the development of perversion”, she haswritten, the primary cause would lie in a disturbed mother-childrelationship, “especially () involving the genitals. This becomesmost significant … when castration anxiety is extraordinarily acute”.Psychoanalysts have shown that the mothers of boys who become sexualperverts often were overly stringent about toilet training. As we havenoted, Klara Hitler had a reputation in Leonding and Linz for havinghad “the cleanest house in town” and keeping her children “absolutelyspotless”. It is interesting, and perhaps in this connectionsuggestive, that in one case of perversion described by an Americananalyst, the patient showed an identification with his mother: hedisplayed a desire “to have his sweetheart urinate in his presencewhile he encouraged her in a friendly way. He was playing the role ofhis mother who used to put him on the chamberpot when he was a baby”.In his chapter on perversion in his standard work on psychoanalytictheory, Otto Fenichel lists three basic characteristics: patients withperversions tend to be infantile; they have unreconciled Oedipuscomplexes; and they all display castration anxiety. Indeed, Fenichelconcludes: “Castration anxiety (and guilt feelings which arederivatives of castration anxiety) must be the decisive factor”. AdolfHitler’s lifelong concern about castration has already been mentionedperhaps too often.If the clinical literature is correct in concluding that Oedipalproblems, sadomasochism, infantilism, and castration anxiety are themarks of perversion, then Hitler certainly had all the chief symptoms.But there is a more specific reason why Adolf’s symptoms were sointense and why a sexual perversion of the kind described was,psychologically, an appropriate response to sexual problems datingfrom his earlier years. The combination of monorchism and primal scenetrauma had given Adolf Hitler a lifelong fear and abhorrence ofgenital sexual intercourse. He saw it as dangerous, evil, depraved,something that must be avoided. He could avoid genital intercourse byredirecting his sexual energies in deviate ways.As with other issues raised in this book, we cannot be absolutelycertain that Hitler had the perversion described here. It must beadmitted that traditional historians who reject this hypothesis arecorrect in saying that they can find evidence to support theirassertions that he was sexually normal. But that conclusion is alsobased on fragmentary evidence of uncertain reliability. And it simplydoes not fit the psychological data.In short, we conclude that Adolf Hitler, upon occasion, had youngladies urinate or defecate on his head. We are persuaded that he hadthis perversion not because the traditional type of evidence iscompletely convincing but because it is solidly reinforced bypsychological evidence. The perversion fits all that we know aboutHitler’s private life and public performance. It was an expression ofthe fetid underside of his grandiose, moralistic public image; itexpressed the degraded, guilt-ridden self which pleaded for punishmentand humiliation. This impulse for self-punishment, we shall suggest inthe concluding chapter, was to have historic consequences…~ Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Basic Books,1977, pp.237–243」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|