Was Hitler Darkworker or Misguided ?

[PerDev]

Was Hitler Darkworker or Misguided or Hipnotized ?
What do you think guys ?

[aggie]

embodiment of evil

[minervana]

Nobody really knows why Hitler did what he did. It's not even known if the idea of the Holocaust originated with him--though of course he must have approved of it, which is monstrous enough. I know that the theory is he became anti-semitic when he was 19 or 20, when he was rejected from art school and his mother died, cutting off his financial support, forcing him to live in the Viennese slums with ethnic minorities, including Jews.

My best guess is that Hitler was a sociopath or psychopath, incapable of feeling empathy or conscience. Many sociopaths are able to learn the social norms and live fairly normal and uneventful lives (even though they're toxic to everyone around them--they don't notice it). We'll never know what would have happened if Hitler had been accepted to art school. Sociopaths also seek positions of power because they think they're the most wonderful thing to exist, better than sliced bread, and they don't want to be subject to all the stifling social norms that "peons" have. They live to dominate others, for their own glory (although they might project that onto something like "The Glory of Our Fatherland").

Hitler's father was physically and emotionally tyrranical, and he spent many years in an all boys boarding school which meant he probably learned very early on that "the victory of the stronger is assured, might makes right."

So, in a literal sense, he was misguided, in that if a few things had been different we probably wouldn't have had Hitler the historical figure. But it's entirely possible that even if he was just a miller or a farmer or something, he still might have been an evil person, incapable of empathy or conscience, but anonymous and powerless.

Please note, this information comes from overhearing "The History Channel," taking a class on the Weimar Republic, and reading "Mephisto" by Klaus Mann. I don't know exactly how everything happened, this is just my guess.

[MichaelMaxwell]

I doubt Hitler was the driving force behind all the evil that occurred in WW2. I know his Doctor had a lot of control over him and kept the guy doped up all the time. I'm sure there were more than a few people whispering in his ear. It seems to me more like he was riding on top of the wave of evil than actually causing it.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by MichaelMaxwell

I doubt Hitler was the driving force behind all the evil that occurred in WW2. I know his Doctor had a lot of control over him and kept the guy doped up all the time. I'm sure there were more than a few people whispering in his ear. It seems to me more like he was riding on top of the wave of evil than actually causing it.

Although i think Hitler had a lot of power and acted discretionarily on many issues, I agree that the stage was all set for a leader like Hitler to emerge and wreak havoc.


I think it's very hard to fit Hitler into any stereotype, he was just too crazy.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by minervana

My best guess is that Hitler was a sociopath or psychopath, incapable of feeling empathy or conscience. Many sociopaths are able to learn the social norms and live fairly normal and uneventful lives (even though they're toxic to everyone around them--they don't notice it). We'll never know what would have happened if Hitler had been accepted to art school. Sociopaths also seek positions of power because they think they're the most wonderful thing to exist, better than sliced bread, and they don't want to be subject to all the stifling social norms that "peons" have. They live to dominate others, for their own glory (although they might project that onto something like "The Glory of Our Fatherland").

There are other politicians who were like this in our "civilized countries". You just need to see which countries had prisons that work like concentration camps and torture people today, and refuse to bring them to court because it would uncover SS-like cover ops. Look at those who promoted that and you will see others like Hitler who are supposed to be "respectable".

Originally Posted by Sam988

I think it's very hard to fit Hitler into any stereotype, he was just too crazy.

A crazy man would be out of touch with reality. He would have launched chemical weapons on UK, but he knew that UK would reply with chemicals too. Hitler was a politician who reacted to reality to achieve power. That's not madness, that's politics. Hitler is portrayed as evil, so people have a distraction and they do not see their own evil politicians.

War is a confrontation of "evil against evil". There are no good guys. Dig enough into history, and you wil discover that.

If Hitler was so evil because he killed jewish, allies were equally evil, because they ignored the request of jewish groups to attack railways that carried such prisoners. They were after politics, not human rights.

Once you know about politics you understand that politics is a game of convenience. But the aboslute relativity of convenience makes politicians to be evil, no matter the country.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by PerDev

Was Hitler Darkworker or Misguided or Hipnotized ?
What do you think guys ?

Probably all three.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by ar81

War is a confrontation of "evil against evil". There are no good guys. Dig enough into history, and you wil discover that.

If someone attacks you (whether it be personally or nationally), is it evil to defend yourself?

Is it best to not defend yourself and either:

a) become slaves of the aggressors,

or

b) be eradicated?

Just asking the question.

[PerDev]

if you see from perspective from Lightworker then you will find
All darkworker's are miguided

Originally Posted by Cantando

Probably all three.

[blossom]

Psychologists now say that Hitler was raised by a very abusive grandmother whom he hated, and she was part jewish. In psychological circles it would be a classic case of him projecting his hatred for his grandmother onto the millions of jewish people he had killed. By purging his own pain onto them. It would have been largely unconscious, although there is also speculation that he also had syphilis, which causes deterioration of the brain and insanity is a common outcome...especially back then when there were no treatments like there are now.

Also, if someone attacks me it would be stupid to just let them. We have violence in us for a reason, and if we are threatened it is instinctual to defend ourselves.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by PerDev

if you see from perspective from Lightworker then you will find
All darkworker's are miguided

If the above is correct would a dark worker see all light workers as misguided?

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Cantando

If someone attacks you (whether it be personally or nationally), is it evil to defend yourself?

Is it best to not defend yourself and either:

a) become slaves of the aggressors,

or

b) be eradicated?

Just asking the question.

If you have bad relationships, who attacks first becomes irrelevant.
Unfortunately, politics is more like a theater.
And people in need to believe, who lack religion, start to believe in political gods.
You still live the urban legend/fairy tale/cliché of the international drama triangle.

Nations disappear and appear all the time.
Those who fought endless wars were defending countries that do not exist today.
Even China, which culture is 4000 years old, did not exist as a country by 250AD. By then the kindoms of Wu, Shu and Wei existed and were fighting each other.

If we think about Earth as our nation, wars take place between municipal jurisdictions, one neighborhood against another. Wars are idiotic.

Fortunately, wars are detrimental for economy. Wars create deficit that may lead to hyperinflation.
Falklands war led Argentina to hyperinflation and riots.
France funded wars and got debt and deficit and had hyperinflation and then revolution.
Russia also had a similar situation as they funded war and then they had hyperinflation communist revlution.
Chinese revolution has a similar story.
So poverty caused by hyperinflation is the price of paying for war.

US is right now at risk of a hyperinflation after this recession ends.
You may say thank you to banks that created lots of money, and also US paid for war.
If people are willing to accept the consequences of war in terms of poverty and crisis, then that's up to people.
Wars are like soccer games. People kill each other in the name of their barbarian tribe.

But wars have no winners, there is no good guy and evil guy.
There are only politicians driven by convenience and lack of morality.

If you do not believe me, tell me which countries in human history have used torture, concentration camps, and have NOT enforced human rights. Then I will tell you who is evil.

If you talk about aggressors and slavery, I recall the war of 1856 in Central America, where Americans led by William Walker attacked to enslave Central Americans, but Central Americans defeated Walker in the first Vietnam, led by Costa Rican army who were well trained by UK.

I also recall the Canada-US war in 1812-14 where people from US attacked Canada. Winter killed invaders, and then Canadian indians did some stuff on the corpses to make it look like they had killed them, and American farmers in Canada and the Royal forces also helped to stop the attackers. While indians in Canada had second class british citizenship, at least they did not suffer the abuse American indians suffered.

I also recall US support to dictator Anastasio Somoza that was going to invade Costa Rica. He did not attack because Venezuela (an unlikely ally of Costa Rica) filled Costa Rican airports with jet fighters, so if Somoza dare to attack, he would see Nicaragua blown to bits. Who supported the aggressor?

Pinochet dictator also had help from US. Saddam Hussein got plenty of funding and political support from Reagan while he murdered Kurds. US voted in favor of the Khmer Rouge before UN, despite of acknowledging it as the "worst violator of human rights".

US refused to attack railways that were used to carry jewish prisoners to concentration camps, because it would "divert resources". US basically refused to stop genocide. Hitler comitted genocide and US refused to stop it. But when it is about oil or money, US comes in a hurry.

Do you think all this is "propaganda" from foreigners?
Just watch CNN: YouTube - 1/14 Scream Bloody Murder CNN Christiane Amanpour Genocide Armenia Jews Rafael Lemkin Elie Wiesel

Politics is just theatrics. Because if it was about good and evil, people would have no problems to say who is evil. Both sides are evil. And of course, for followers of a tribal fairy tale "the enemy is evil, we are good".

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by ar81

A crazy man would be out of touch with reality. He would have launched chemical weapons on UK, but he knew that UK would reply with chemicals too. Hitler was a politician who reacted to reality to achieve power. That's not madness, that's politics. Hitler is portrayed as evil, so people have a distraction and they do not see their own evil politicians.

War is a confrontation of "evil against evil". There are no good guys. Dig enough into history, and you wil discover that.

If Hitler was so evil because he killed jewish, allies were equally evil, because they ignored the request of jewish groups to attack railways that carried such prisoners. They were after politics, not human rights.

Once you know about politics you understand that politics is a game of convenience. But the aboslute relativity of convenience makes politicians to be evil, no matter the country.

Hitler was a mad dog. He got lucky to rise to power because as i said the stage was all set for someone with charisma and a lot of emotional allure like him. If you dig enough into history you'll see that Hitler's military decisions were very irrational, otherwise, if we had a rational, military genius like Rommel commanding the whole German military then i'd not want to know what the world would have turned into.

[yossarian]

Hitler was a figurehead. In the same way that Cheney controlled George Bush, Hitler was controlled by his direct advisors.

Hitler himself would probably have to be considered a lightworker since his intentions were to help. But obviously he was totally insane. What drove him more than anything was his sense of justice - he felt that Germany had been grievously wronged in WW1 and that Germany had to assert herself and stand up for herself. Also, he thought the Jews were betraying Germany.

So I mean his intentions were towards justice and defense of his people. Which are fine intentions. His advisors were darkworkers though - Himmler, Goebbels, as well as a handful of others that most people haven't heard of. They were out for their own power and wealth in my opinion, and Hitler was their puppet.

Retrospectives on the Bush whitehouse confirm strongly what everyone always thought - Bush was actually out of the loop. He pretty much took his orders from Cheney who ran the show behind his back and would even keep secrets from Bush. Everyone in the government knew that Cheney was the real power behind the throne. Yet today Bush receives most of our hatred for being the witless figurehead. Hitler was a similar story, from everything I've read.

He was certainly an evil guy in my opinion, but since his intentions were to help you'd have to call him a lightworker.

[Wanderer]

Hitler wasn't insane.

People don't do things if they think there the wrong thing to do, otherwise they wouldn't do them. So we can surmise that Hitler thought he was doing the right thing.

If Germany had won the war, where would we be today. I would probably be speaking German, loving Germany, possibly hating Jews (possibly not). I would remember that evil Government who had used to rule England, and how my Grandpa had been liberated less than a hundred years ago by the Fuhrer (the Leader). The leader had brought prosperity to England, jobs for all, no foreigners stealing them, no homeless on the streets or prostitutes. Sounds a lot better than it is now. If Hitler had won the war maybe we wouldn't be in a recession.

History is written by the victors. People think Hitler was evil because he lost, if he had won, we wouldn't think that. We think terrorism is wrong. Killing innocents to try and change something is unfair. But if an alien space ship landed in Canada, and started marching on the USA with weapons that were so technologically advanced your armies had no chance. I can guarantee the USA would attack there home. After killing millions of Female aliens and baby aliens they would fly away, and America would call it a huge success, saved from the evil aliens.
The aliens however, who are just trying to stay alive, and have been shunted from planet to planet for hundreds of years, would call us evil, destroying millions of families.

Its all a matter of perspective.

I am not a nazi, and some of the things that happened in the World Wars I think were wrong. But this doesn't change the fact that they were allowed to happen by people like you and me. And stuff is happening in the world right now that is worse and you aren't doing anything to stop it. 50000 people die every day of starvation water borne diseases and aids. That's September 11th every single day, that's more than 18 million a year (3 times as many as the Jews that died in WW2). To them you are evil, why are you letting them die?

So back to the original question:
I think Hitler was trying to do the best he could with what he had, which is all any of us can do. Possibly he was misguided, I seriously doubt that he was hypnotized, a darkworker or evil. Something to think about.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Hitler wasn't insane.

People don't do things if they think there the wrong thing to do, otherwise they wouldn't do them. So we can surmise that Hitler thought he was doing the right thing.

That may well be true. I don't know if he was insane or not. I'm not a psychiatrist.

But, he did stuff the rest of us would consider not very normal. It's a conundrum. Maybe, he had an abusive childhood - many of us have. But, we don't all go out with a plan to wipe out the Jews and dominate the world with a master race.

I really wonder what made him tick.

To a greater or lesser extent, he was controlled by the financiers and arms makers who sought to capitalize on the war,

But, he did wield maximum power. What he said, went, right up to the time of his suicide in the bunker in 1945.

What normal/sane person would believe that wiping out Jews, Slavs, blacks, gays, communists and all manner of Untermenschen would be the best solution for Germany or the world?

BTW - if he was sane and realistic, why did he try to invade Russia? - big mistake. Napoleon had already tried that and failed. Why were his final orders to keep sending German soldiers to their inevitable deaths, even though he knew it was game over?

[ar81]

Hitler was good for speech and gaining positions in power games in a domestic surrounding.
In everything else he was mediocre.
He made several poor decisions.

As a human he is a reminder that a normal human with a heart made of stone may become a cold blooded and cruel person who does not care about human rights.
People see him as "evil" and that prevents people to recognize other Hitler copycats in their own countries.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Cantando

What normal/sane person would believe that wiping out Jews, Slavs, blacks, gays, communists and all manner of Untermenschen would be the best solution for Germany or the world?

Add arabs, muslims, argentine leftist teenagers, chilean political dissidents, canadian citizens in Saudi Arabia... and you will realize who else deserve the same label of Hitler.

[Wanderer]

I think people are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

Less than 100 years ago, blacks and gays were considered 'lesser people' women were also considered inferior and didn't have the right to vote. Many people still believe communism is wrong.

He was a 'great' man, I don't mean great as in woohoo go Hitler, I mean great as in did incredible things. People in power daily make decisions that we wouldn't. Many would argue that America is daily sending its soldiers to Afghanistan to die, or that the same thing happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan seems unwinnable, but President Obama is not classed as insane.

I doubt anyone alive today knows why he did what he did, but he believed he was doing what was best for Germany. It is understandable that if the Jews who were in control of a lot of the money in Germany at that time weren't there the money would probably be with the Germans. Therefore get rid of the Jews and Germans become richer. His logic made sense.

And lets not forget that after the first world war Europe was set up for the Germans to make another attack, with there country been pretty much split in two.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Gene

If the above is correct would a dark worker see all light workers as misguided?

It's fairly common for them to think that way, yes. Frankly, it's stupid for one to call the other "misguided" as a blanket statement. It disacknowledges the natural order of things. Light without dark is like a boy that can't get it up on prom night.

Based on what we know about Hitler, it's clear that he thought he was acting for the greater good. It was his wish to make Germany a great nation. When he killed himself, I believe he did so for his country's honor and not because he was afraid to face the consequences of getting captured or killed by enemy soldiers. (That kind of sacrifice is unthinkable for a darkworker. "There is no justice if I die." While lightworkers are not self-sacrificial by nature, they regard the whole as being more important than themselves so sacrifice is not entirely out of the question.)

He was also quite pitiful. He had a number of embarrassing health issues he kept hush-hush. Was it because of his own insecurity, or because he didn't want to make Germany appear weaker due to his incontinence?

I'd argue there's a solid case for Hitler as a lightworker, albeit one who served corrupt ideals. But polarity is largely about inner alignment. Accurately judging it from the outside, especially with history books as the source, is a difficult task. The victors write history-they always have. The only reason we don't remember Hitler as a hero/lightworker is because his side lost. If the American revolutionaries had lost the war, they would be regarded as fools. If Abraham Lincoln hadn't won the Civil War, we would know him as a charismatic would-be tyrant. If we forumgoers had lived back in WWII Germany, I dare say many of us would have looked upon Hitler as a savior.

It's also worthy of note that Hitler may have been neutral. We don't know how much power he really had. He was a war hero, and he was charismatic. But it's not only powerful people who gain authority; puppets take power, too.

---

If you want to know why I think Hitler might have been a lightworker, I will provide contrast. The Operative from "Serenity" is a perfect example a lightworker villain and it may provide insight into Hitler's mind:

The Operative: I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I doubt anyone alive today knows why he did what he did, but he believed he was doing what was best for Germany. It is understandable that if the Jews who were in control of a lot of the money in Germany at that time weren't there the money would probably be with the Germans. Therefore get rid of the Jews and Germans become richer. His logic made sense.

I would contrast this with what's happening today in America's financial sector. Consider how outraged the people are that corporate executives are receiving outlandish compensation. If the president decided to cut off their heads, I honestly think there are many people who would throw their support behind it. People are angry. People want justice. The banksters have redistributed America's wealth so that they control 99% of it. Taking them down by any means necessary could be seen as a justifiable course of action.

I'd also hearken back to the crusades. It wasn't just about power, though I'm sure some people were using religion to gain a stranglehold over the minds of the people. When you truly believe your way is the road to heaven and all others lead to damnation, surely you would be desperate to cut off all other routes so that as many as possible would be saved. This is not an ideal world; sometimes people have to die so that other people can live. It's a fact of life. If you think circumstances necessitate sacrifice, there's no limit on what you can do.

[vartann]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

Based on what we know about Hitler, it's clear that he thought he was acting for the greater good. It was his wish to make Germany a great nation. When he killed himself, I believe he did so for his country's honor and not because he was afraid to face the consequences of getting captured or killed by enemy soldiers. (That kind of sacrifice is unthinkable for a darkworker. "There is no justice if I die."

not so clearcut

some Daimyos - even Shoguns - clearly were seeking Power first and foremost -
still they found Honor in Seppuku upon facing "defeat"

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by vartann

not so clearcut

some Daimyos - even Shoguns - clearly were seeking Power first and foremost -
still they found Honor in Seppuku upon facing "defeat"

Their code of honor required death upon failure. They didn't sacrifice themselves for an ideal, they sacrificed themselves because it was the only way to save face upon surviving a lost battle.

I'd like to emphasize that I was talking about justice, or something bigger than oneself. Hitler sacrificed himself for the whole, or at least his actions can be interpreted that way. That's what is unthinkable to a darkworker. Death as a matter of personal honor is not entirely out of the question.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

Hitler sacrificed himself for the whole, or at least his actions can be interpreted that way.

I seriously doubt that.

I believe he was paranoid and ego-driven and used ideas of dominating the world with his master, Aryan race as a projection of his own inadequacies. He wasn't even tall and blond!

He killed himself because he couldn't face the consequences.

He couldn't bear to be the loser, to be made accountable for the atrocities he had perpetrated against mankind.

It had absolutely nothing to do with sacrificing for the greater good.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by PerDev

Was Hitler Darkworker or Misguided or Hipnotized ?
What do you think guys ?

Hawkins says that Hitler originally had good intentions, but as soon as he was elected and gained full power over both the government AND military, he let his pride get the best of him and turned into a delusioned maniac.

[themaster]

Was Hitler Darkworker or Misguided or Hipnotized ?

Hitler wasn't misguided.. he was one of US! The sooner you get closer to the idea that we are all hitler, were all capable of doing what he did.. the closer you get to understanding your true self.. and ultimately that everything is you..

What do you think guys ?

These are 2 ideas of what hitler did that seem to be most likely in part what was going
- Hitler fullfilled the roles the jewish people wanted as being victimized
- Hitler was re-playing/re-creating a atlantian play

[blossom]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I agree with Curtis and cantando, Hitler didn't give a damn about the greater good. I doubt whether he even really knew why he hated jews so much...he was so caught up in the power of it all and didn't want to face the consequences. He was a coward not a hero.:rolleyes

And yes we can all be cowards, and ego-maniacs and power hungry and delusional at times themaster, so in that sense, we are all like Hitler, just not as active about it!

[Plays With Life]

It seems to me that Hitler got his "superior race" ideas from Americans. From an article here:

> The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in the United States was a "lethal chamber" or public, locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, "Applied Eugenics," which argued, "From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." "Applied Eugenics" also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency."

> Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes' words in their own defense.

> Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution.

This was some decades before Hitler was even on the scene, and across the pond. These people visited Hitler and his organization, donated money and exerted influence on what happened in Germany.

Hitler kind of gets the "blame". But I tend to think he was put forward by the people who were really driving the eugenics movement. I wonder if he wasn't just a "front", a convenient figurehead individual for these people. I don't really know how much he was in or out of the loop about what was really going on.

[Lioness]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

It seems to me that Hitler got his "superior race" ideas from Americans. here:

..."From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." "Applied Eugenics" also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection,"
> Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

It is one thing to argue for the severely mentally disabled to be sterilized, or even lethal selection. But how exactly was Hitler manipulated into using this as justification for the mass murder of Jewish people?

Hitler kind of gets the "blame". But I tend to think he was put forward by the people who were really driving the eugenics movement. I wonder if he wasn't just a "front", a convenient figurehead individual for these people. I don't really know how much he was in or out of the loop about what was really going on.

Regardless of where he may have gotten his ideas from, Hitler had the power and there is no evidence that he was being controlled by anyone. From the historical documents, there is so much evidence that he not only knew exactly what was going on, but that he orchestrated it from beginning to end.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by Lioness

It is one thing to argue for the severely mentally disabled to be sterilized, or even lethal selection. But how exactly was Hitler manipulated into using this as justification for the mass murder of Jewish people?

Regardless of where he may have gotten his ideas from, Hitler had the power and there is no evidence that he was being controlled by anyone. From the historical documents, there is so much evidence that he not only knew exactly what was going on, but that he orchestrated it from beginning to end.

I never said he was manipulated, or that he used these ideas as a justification. What I mean to say is the ideas did not originate with him. As for how these people exerted influence:

> During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists.

> During the Reich's early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler's plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort.

> In 1934, as Germany's sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe, upon returning from Germany, ebulliently bragged to a colleague, "You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program."

> By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 -- almost $4 million in today's money -- to hundreds of German researchers.

Regardless of whether he was directed by other people, it was certainly not Just Him who initiated and encouraged the situation. It just seems to me that people tend to think it started with Hitler, and it ended with Hitler. That's not right; it started before Hitler, and the worldview and the aims continued after Hitler died. If someone wanted a scapegoat to take the blame, and to misdirect attention away from themselves as the real orchestrators .. well they probably achieved that, right?

Re whether he knew what was going on - again, I don't know. I haven't read those documents. I'd guess it depends on which historical documents you read.