Hitler's Mother
HER POSITION IN THE FAMILY AND HER ROLE IN ADOLF'S LIFE
All the biographers agree that Klara Hitler loved her son
very much and spoiled him. It must be stated at the outset
that this view is a contradiction in terms if we take love to
mean that the mother is open and sensitive to her child's true
needs. This is precisely what is lacking if a child is spoiled,
i.e., if his every wish is granted and he is showered with things
he does not need--all this simply as ersatz for that which parents are
unable to give their child because of their own problems. Therefore, if
a child is spoiled, this points to a serious deficiency, which is then
confirmed in later life. If Hitler had really been loved as a child, he
would also have been capable of love. His relationships with women, his
perversions (cf. Stierlin, page 194), and his whole aloof and basically
cold relationships with people in general reveal that he never received
love from any quarter.
Before Adolf was born, Klara had three children, all of whom died of
diphtheria within a month of one another. The first two were perhaps
already ill when the third child was born, who then died when he was
only three days old. Thirteen months later, Adolf was born. I reproduce
here Stierlin's very useful chart:
1. Gustav
(diphtheria)
2. Ida
(diphtheria)
3. Otto
(diphtheria)
4. Adolf
5. Edmund
6. Paula
|
BORN
5/17/ 1885
9/23/1886
1887
4/20/1889
3/24/1894
1/21/1896
|
DIED
12/8/1887
1/2/1888
1887
2/2/1900
|
AGE AT DEATH
2 yr. 7 mos.
1 yr. 4 mos.
approx. 3 days
almost 6 yrs.
|
The prettified legend depicts Klara as a loving mother who, after the
death of her first three children, showered all her affection on Adolf.
It is probably no accident that all the biographers who paint this
lovely Madonna-like portrait are men. A candid contemporary woman who is
herself a mother will perhaps have a somewhat more realistic picture of
the events preceding Adolf's birth and a more accurate one of the sort
of emotional atmosphere surrounding his first year of life, so crucial
for a child's sense of security.
When she is sixteen, Klara Potzl moves into the home of her "Uncle
Alois," where she is to take care of his sick wife and two children.
There she is later made pregnant by the master of the house even before
his wife is dead, and when she is twenty-four the forty-eight-year-old
Alois marries her. Within a period of two and a half years she gives
birth to three children and loses all three in the space of four or five
weeks. Let us try to imagine what actually happened. The first child,
Gustav, comes down with diphtheria in November; Klara can scarcely take
care of him because she is about to give birth to her third child, Otto,
who probably catches the disease from Gustav and dies after three days.
Soon after, before Christmas, Gustav dies and three weeks later the
second child, Ida, as well. Thus, within a period of four to five weeks,
Klara has lived through the birth of one child and the death of three. A
woman need not be especially sensitive for such a shock to make her lose
her equilibrium, especially if, like Klara, she is confronted with a
domineering and demanding husband while still practically an adolescent.
Perhaps as a practicing Catholic she regarded these three deaths as
punishment for her adulterous relations with Alois; perhaps she
reproached herself because the birth of her third child prevented her
from taking good care of Gustav. In any case, a woman would have to be
made of stone to remain untouched by these blows of fate, and Klara was
not made of stone. But no one could help her to experience her grief;
her marital duties toward Alois continued, and in the same year as her
daughter Ida's death Klara became pregnant once again. In April of the
following year, she gave birth to Adolf. It was because she could not
deal adequately with her grief under these circumstances that the birth
of a new child must have reactivated her recent shock, mobilizing her
deepest fears and a feeling of great insecurity regarding her ability as
a mother. What woman with these experiences behind her would not have
been fearful during her new pregnancy of a repetition of the past? It is
scarcely conceivable that her son, in his early period of symbiosis with
his mother, imbibed feelings of peace, contentment, and security along
with her milk. It is more likely that his mother's anxiety, the fresh
memories of her three dead children reactivated by Adolf's birth, and
the conscious or unconscious fear that this child would die too were all
communicated directly to her baby as if mother and child were one body.
It was also of course impossible for Klara to experience her anger
toward her self-centered husband, who left her to her anguish. All the
more, then, did her baby who, after all, did not have to be feared like
her domineering husband--come to feel the force of these negative emotions.
All this is destiny; it would be futile to try to find the guilty
person. Many people have had a similar fate. For example, Novalis,
Hölderlin, and Kafka were also strongly influenced by the loss of
several siblings, but they were all able to express their sorrow. In
Hitler's case there was an additional factor: he was unable to tell
anyone about his feelings or about the deep anxiety stemming from the
disturbed early relationship with his mother. He was forced to repress
all this in order not to attract his father's attention and thus provoke
fresh beatings. The only remaining possibility was to identify with the
aggressor.
Something else resulted from this unusual family constellation: mothers
who after losing one child have another often idealize the dead child
(the way unhappy people frequently fantasize about the missed
opportunities in their lives). The living child then feels impelled to
make a special effort and to accomplish something extraordinary in order
not to be overshadowed by the dead sibling. But the mother's real love
is usually directed toward the idealized dead child, whom she imagines
as possessing every virtue--if only it had lived. The same thing
happened to van Gogh, for instance, although only one of his brothers
had died.
A patient who once consulted me spoke of his happy and harmonious
childhood with exaggerated enthusiasm. I am accustomed to idealizations
of this nature, but in this case I was struck by something in his tone
that I could not understand at first. In the course of our session the
man revealed that he had had a sister who died when she was barely two
years old and who apparently had superhuman abilities for her age: she
supposedly took care of her mother when she was ill, sang to her "to
soothe her," could recite entire prayers by heart, and so on. When I
asked the man if he thought this was possible at her age, he looked at
me as though I had just committed a terrible sacrilege, and said, "Not
normally, but with this child it was--it was simply extraordinary, a
miracle." I said to him that mothers very often idealize their dead
children, told him the story of van Gogh, and said it was sometimes very
difficult for the living child to be constantly compared to such a
magnificent image, which one can never live up to. The man resumed
speaking mechanically about his sister's abilities and how terrible it
was that she had to die. Then, all of a sudden, he broke off and was
overcome by grief over his sister's death--or so he believed--which had
occurred almost thirty-five years before. I had the impression that this
was the first time he had ever shed tears over his own childhood, for
these tears were genuine. Only now did I also understand the strange,
artificial tone of voice that had struck me at the beginning of the
hour. Perhaps he had been unconsciously compelled to show me how his
mother had spoken of her firstborn. He spoke as effusively about his
childhood as his mother had about her dead child, but at the same time
he was communicating to me by his unnatural tone of voice the truth
about his childhood fate.
I often thought of this story when patients came to me who had a similar
family constellation. When I explored this with them, time and again I
heard of the cult connected with the graves of dead children, a cult
that is often practiced for decades. The more precarious the mother's
narcissistic equilibrium, the more glowing the picture she paints of the
rich promise that died with her child. This child would have made up for
all her deprivation, for any pain caused her by her husband, and for all
her troubles with her difficult living children. It would have been the
ideal "mother" protecting her from all harm--if only it had not died.
Since Adolf was the first child born after three other children had
died, I cannot imagine how his mother's feeling toward him can be
interpreted solely as one of "devoted love," as described by his
biographers. They all claim that Hitler received too much love from
his mother (they see being spoiled or, as they put it, "oral spoiling,"
as the result of an excess of love), and that is supposed to be why he
was so avid for admiration and recognition. Because he is thought to
have had such a good and long symbiosis with his mother, he is supposed
to have sought it again and again in his narcissistic merging with the
masses. Statements such as these are sometimes found even in
psychoanalytic case histories.
It seems to me that a pedagogical principle deeply rooted in all of us
is at work in these interpretations. Child-rearing manuals often contain
the advice not to "spoil" children by giving them too much love and
consideration (which is called "doting" or "pampering"), but to steel
them for real life right from the beginning. Psychoanalysts express
themselves differently here; they say, for example, that "one must
prepare the child to bear frustration," as if a child could not learn
that on his or her own in life. In fact, exactly the reverse is true: a
child who has been given genuine affection can get along without it as
an adult better than someone who has never had it. Therefore, if a
person craves or "is greedy for" affection, this is always a sign that
he is looking for something he never had and not that he doesn't want to
give up something because he had too much of it in childhood.
It can appear from the outside that someone's every wish is being
granted without this being the case. Thus, a child can be spoiled with
food, toys, and excessive concern without ever being seen or heeded for
what he or she really is. If we take Hitler as an example, it is easy to
imagine that he would never have been loved by his mother if he had
appeared to hate his father, which in fact he did. His mother was not
capable of love but only of meticulously fulfilling her duties. The
condition she must have imposed on her son was that he be a good boy and
"forgive and forget" his father's cruelty toward him. An instructive
detail pointed out by B. F. Smith shows how little able Adolf's mother
would have been to give him her support in his problems with his father:
[T]he old man's dominance made him a permanent object of respect, if not
of awe, to his wife and children. Even after his death his pipes still
stood in a rack on the kitchen shelf, and when his widow wished to make
a particularly important point she would gesture toward the pipes as if
to invoke the authority of the master. [Quoted by Stierlin]
Since Klara extended her "reverence" for her husband, even after his
death, to his pipes, we can scarcely imagine that her son would ever
have been allowed to confide his true feelings to her, especially since
his three dead siblings had surely "always been good" in his mother's
mind, and now that they were in heaven were unable to do anything bad
anyway.
Thus, Adolf could receive affection from his parents only at the expense
of completely disguising and denying his true feelings. This gave rise
to a whole mental outlook that Fest discovers to be a continuous pattern
in Hitler's life. Fest's biography begins with the following sentences,
which underscore this relevant and central point:
All through his life he made the strongest efforts to conceal as
well as to glorify his own personality. Hardly any other prominent
figure in history covered his tracks so well as far as his personal life
was concerned. He stylized his persona with forceful and pedantic
consistency. The image he had of himself was more that of a monument
than of a man. From the start he endeavored to hide behind it. [Hitler]
Someone who has experienced his mother's love will never need to
disguise himself in this way.
Hitler systematically tried to cut off all contact with his past: he did
not allow his half brother Alois to come near him, and he made his
sister Paula, who kept house for him, change her name. But on the stage
of world politics he unconsciously enacted the true drama of his
childhood--under another guise. He, like his father before him, was now
the dictator, the only one who had anything to say. It was the
place of all the others to be silent and to obey. He was someone
who aroused fear, but he also commanded the love of his people, who
prostrated themselves at his feet just as the subservient Klara had once
done at the feet of her husband.
The special fascination Hitler held for women is well
known. For the shy little girl in them, he embodied the admired father,
who knew exactly what was right and wrong and who could in addition
offer them an outlet for the hatred they had bottled up since childhood.
This combination gave Hitler his great following among both women and
men. For all these people had once been raised to be obedient, had grown
up in an atmosphere of duty and Christian virtues; they had to learn at
a very early age to repress their hatred and their needs.
And now along came a man who did not question the underpinnings of this
bourgeois morality of theirs, someone who on the contrary could put the
obedience that had been instilled in them to good use, who never
confronted them with searching questions or inner crises, but instead
provided them with a universal means for finally being able to live out
in a thoroughly acceptable and legal way the hatred they had been
repressing all their lives. Who would not take advantage of such an
opportunity? The Jews could now be blamed for everything, and the actual
erstwhile persecutors--one's own, often truly tyrannical parents--could
be honored and idealized.
I know a woman who never happened to have any contact with a Jew up to
the time she joined the Bund Deutscher Mädel, the female equivalent of
the Hitler Youth. She had been brought up very strictly. Her parents
needed her to help out in the household after her siblings (two brothers
and a sister) had left home. For this reason she was not allowed to
prepare for a career even though she very much wanted to and even though
she had the necessary qualifications. Much later she told me with what
enthusiasm she had read about "the crimes of the Jews" in Mein Kampf and
what a sense of relief it had given her to find out that it was
permissible to hate someone so unequivocally. She had never been allowed
to envy her siblings openly for being able to pursue their careers. But
the Jewish banker to whom her uncle had to pay interest on a loan -- he
was an exploiter of her poor uncle, with whom she identified. She
herself was actually being exploited by her parents and was envious of
her siblings, but a well-behaved girl was not permitted to have these
feelings. And now, quite unexpectedly, there was such a simple solution:
it was all right to hate as much as she wanted; she still remained (and
perhaps for this very reason was) her parents' good girl and a useful
daughter of the fatherland. Moreover, she could project the "bad" and
weak child she had always learned to despise in herself onto the weak
and helpless Jews and experience herself as exclusively strong,
exclusively pure (Aryan), exclusively good.
And Hitler himself? This is where the whole process of enactment had its
start. It was also true for him that in the Jew, he was mistreating the
helpless child he once was in the same way his father had mistreated
him. And just as the father was never satisfied and whipped him every
day, nearly beating him to death when he was eleven, Hitler also was
never satisfied; he wrote in his will, after he had already had six
million Jews put to death, that it was still necessary to exterminate
the last remnants of Jewry.
What is revealed here, as in the case of Alois and the other parents who
beat their children, is the fear of a possible resurrection and return
of the split-off parts of the self. This is why beating is a
never-ending task--behind it hovers fear of the emergence of one's own,
repressed weakness, humiliation, and helplessness, which one has tried
to escape all one's life by means of grandiose behavior: Alois with his
position as a high-level customs official, Adolf as the Führer, someone
else as a psychiatrist who swears by electric-shock treatment or as a
research doctor who conducts experiments by transplanting monkey brains,
as a professor who prescribes what his students should believe, or
simply as a parent rearing a child. None of these endeavors is directed
at other human beings (or at monkeys)--what is really at issue in
everything these people do to others when they despise and demean them
is the attempt to exterminate their own former weakness and to avoid sorrow.
Helm Stierlin's interesting study of Hitler proceeds from the premise
that Adolf's mother unconsciously "delegated" him to come to her rescue.
According to this view, oppressed Germany would then be a symbol for the
mother. This may be correct, but there can be no doubt that deep-seated,
intensely personal, and unconscious problems also find expression in the
savage fanaticism of Hitler's later actions, which represent a gigantic
struggle to purge his self--for which Germany is a symbol--of all traces
of his boundless degradation.
One interpretation does not exclude the other, however rescuing the
mother also implies a struggle for the child's own existence. To put it
another way: if Adolf's mother had been a strong woman, she would
not--in the child's mind--have allowed him to be exposed to these
torments and to constant fear and dread. But because she herself had
been degraded and was a total slave to her husband, she was not able to
shield her child. Now he had to save his mother (Germany) from the enemy
in order to have the kind of good, pure, strong mother, free of Jewish
contamination, who could have given him security. Children very often
fantasize that they must save or rescue their mother so that she can
finally be the mother to them whom they needed from the beginning. This
can become a full-time occupation in later life. But since it is not
possible for children to save their mothers, the compulsion to repeat
this situation of powerlessness inevitably leads to failure or even to
catastrophe if its underlying roots are not recognized and experienced.
Stierlin's ideas could be carried even further along these lines and,
put in symbolic terms, might lead to the following horrendous
conclusion: the liberation of Germany and the destruction of the Jewish
people down to the last Jew, i.e., the complete removal of the bad
father, would have provided Hitler with the conditions that could have
made him a happy child growing up in a calm and peaceful situation with
a beloved mother.
This unconscious symbolic goal is of course a delusion, for the past can
never be changed; yet every delusion has its own meaning, which is very
easy to understand once the childhood situation is known. This meaning
is frequently distorted by case histories and by information given us by
biographers, who overlook precisely the most essential data because
defense mechanisms are involved. For example, a great deal of research
and writing has been done on the question of whether Alois Hitler's
father was really Jewish and whether Alois could be called an alcoholic.
Often, however, the child's psychic reality has very little to do with
what the biographers later "prove" to be facts. The mere suspicion of
Jewish blood in the family is much more difficult for a child to bear
than the certainty. Alois himself must have suffered from this
uncertainty, and there can be little doubt that Adolf knew of the rumors
even though no one wanted to speak openly about the matter. The very
thing that parents try to hide is what will preoccupy a child the most,
especially if a major parental trauma is involved (cf. page 166).
The persecution of the Jews "made it possible" for Hitler to "correct"
his past on the level of fantasy. It permitted him:
- To take revenge on his father, who was suspected of being half
Jewish
- To liberate his mother (Germany) from her persecutor
- To attain his mother's love with fewer moral sanctions, with
more true self-expression (the German people loved Hitler for being a
shrieking Jew-hater, not for being the well-behaved Catholic boy he had
to be for his mother)
- To reverse roles -- he has now become the dictator, he must
now be obeyed and submitted to as his father once was; he organizes
concentration camps in which people are treated the way he was as a
child. (A person is not likely to conceive something monstrous if he
does not know it somehow or other from experience. We simply tend to
refuse to take a child's suffering seriously enough.)
- Moreover, the persecution of the Jews permitted him to persecute
the weak child in his own self that was now projected onto the victims.
In this way he would not have to experience grief over his past pain,
which had been especially hard to bear because his mother had not been
able to prevent it. In this, as well as in his unconscious revenge on
his early childhood persecutor, Hitler resembled a great number of
Germans who had grown up in a similar situation.
In the portrait of Adolf Hitler's family as drawn by Stierlin, we still
are shown the loving mother who, while she delegates the function of
rescuer to her child, protects him at the same time from the violent
father. In Freud's version of the Oedipus legend, we also find this
beloved and loving idealized mother figure. In his book on male
fantasies, Klaus Theweleit comes somewhat closer to the truth about
these mothers, although he too hesitates to draw the logical
consequences from his material. He ascertains that the image of a
strict, punitive father and a devoted, protective mother keeps occurring
in the cases he analyzes of representatives of Fascist ideology. The
mother is referred to as "the best wife and mother in the world," as a
"good angel," as "clever, of strong character, helpful, and deeply
religious." The Fascists Theweleit analyzes admire qualities in the
mothers of their comrades or in their mothers-in-law that they
apparently do not want to attribute to their own mothers: severity, love
of the fatherland, a Prussian attitude ("Germans do not cry")--the
mother of iron who "doesn't bat an eyelash at the news of the death of
her sons."
Theweleit quotes a case:
Still, it was not this news that turned out to be the last straw for the
mother. Four sons were killed in the war; this she survived. It took
something ridiculous in comparison to devastate her. The province of
Lorraine became French and with it the company mines. [Männerphantasien]
But what if these two sides were two halves of one's own mother? Hermann
Ehrhardt relates in the same book:
Once on a winter's night I stood sullenly outside in the snow for four
hours before my mother finally said now I had been punished enough.
Before the mother "rescues" her son by saying he "had been punished
enough," she sees to it that he stands in the snow for four hours. A
child cannot understand why the mother he loves hurts him so, cannot
comprehend why the woman who in his eyes is a giantess in actuality
fears her husband as if she were a little girl and unconsciously passes
on her own childhood humiliation to her little boy. A child cannot help
but suffer from this harsh treatment. But he dare not live out this
suffering or show it. There is no choice but to split it off and project
it onto others, i.e., to ascribe his mother's harsh qualities to other
mothers and even come to admire these qualities in them.
Could Klara Hitler help her son as long as she was herself her husband's
dependent, submissive serving maid? While he was alive, she timidly
called her husband "Uncle Alois," and after his death she would gesture
toward his pipes, which were on display in the kitchen, to emphasize a
point she was making.
What happens to a child when he must repeatedly see the same mother who
tells him of her love, who carefully prepares his meals and sings lovely
songs to him, turn into a pillar of salt and look on without lifting a
finger when this child is given a brutal beating by his father? How must
he feel when time after time he hopes in vain that she will help him,
will come to his rescue; how must he feel when in his suffering he waits
in vain for her finally to use her power, which in his eyes is so great,
on his behalf? The mother watches her child being humiliated, derided,
and tormented without coming to his defense, without doing anything to
save him. Through her silence she is in complicity with his persecutor;
she is abandoning her child. Can we expect a child to understand this?
Should we be surprised if his bitterness, although repressed, is also
directed against the mother? Perhaps this child will love his mother
dearly on a conscious level; later, in his relationships with other
people, he will repeatedly have the feeling of being abandoned,
sacrificed, and betrayed.
Hitler's mother is surely no exception but rather the rule, if not even
the ideal of many men. But can a mother who is only a slave give her
child the respect he needs to develop his vitality? We can gather from
the following depiction of the masses in Mein Kampf what Hitler's
ideal of femininity was:
The psyche of the great masses is not receptive to anything that is
halfhearted and weak.
Like a woman, whose psychic state is determined less by grounds of
abstract reason than by an indefinable emotional longing for a force
which will complement her nature, and who, consequently, would rather
bow to a strong man than dominate a weakling, likewise the masses love a
commander more than a petitioner and feel inwardly more satisfied by a
doctrine, tolerating no other beside itself, than by the granting of
liberalistic freedom with which, as a rule, they can do little, and are
prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They are equally unaware of
their shameless spiritual terrorization and the hideous abuse of their
human freedom, for they absolutely fail to suspect the inner insanity of
the whole doctrine. All they see is the ruthless force and brutality of
its calculated manifestations, to which they always submit in the end.
In his description of the masses, Hitler accurately portrays his mother
and her subservience. His political guidelines are based on very early
experiences: brutality always wins out.
Hitler's scorn for women, understandable given his family background,
was reinforced by the theories of Lanz von Liebenfels,
[whose] race theory was permeated by sexual-envy complexes and
deep-seated antifemale emotions; woman, he maintained, had brought sin
into the world, and her susceptibility to the lecherous wiles of bestial
subhuman men was the chief cause for the infection of Nordic blood.
[Fest, Hitler ]
Perhaps Klara called her husband "Uncle Alois" out of sheer timidity,
but whatever the reason, he found this acceptable. Did he even require
it, just as he wished to be addressed by his neighbors with the formal
"Sie," not the usual familiar "Du"? Even Adolf refers to him in Mein
Kampf as "Herr Hitler," which possibly goes back to a wish of his
father's that was introjected at a very early age. It is quite likely
that by insisting on these forms of address Alois was attempting to
compensate for the misery of his early childhood (being given away by
his mother, illegitimate, poor, of dubious parentage) and finally
perceive himself as Herr . From this conjecture it is only one step to
the possibility that it was for this very reason that for twelve years
the Germans had to greet one another with the salutation "Heil Hitler."
All of Germany had to bow to even the most eccentric, entirely personal
demands of its Führer, just as Klara and Adolf had once had to bow to
their omnipotent master.
Hitler flattered the "German, Germanic" woman because he needed her
homage, her vote, and her other services. He had also needed his mother,
but he never had a chance to achieve a truly warm, intimate relationship
with her. Stierlin writes:
N. Bromberg (1971) has written about Hitler's sexual habits:
"... the only way in which he could get full sexual satisfaction was to
watch a young woman as she squatted over his head and urinated or
defecated in his face." He also reports "... an episode of erotogenic
masochism involving a young German actress at whose feet Hitler threw
himself, asking her to kick him. When she demurred, he pleaded with her
to comply with his wish, heaping accusations on himself and groveling at
her feet in such an agonizing manner that she finally acceded. When she
kicked him, he became excited, and as she continued to kick him at his
urging, he became increasingly excited. The difference in age between
Hitler and the young women with whom he had any sexual involvement was
usually close to the twenty three-year difference between his parents."
It is totally inconceivable that a man who as a child received love and
affection from his mother, which most Hitler biographers claim was the
case, would have suffered from these sadomasochistic compulsions, which
point to a very early childhood disturbance. But our concept of mother
love obviously has not yet wholly freed itself from the ideology of
"poisonous pedagogy."
SUMMARY
Readers who interpret my treatment of Hitler's early childhood as
sentimental or even as an attempt to excuse his deeds naturally have
every right to construe what they have read as they see fit. People who,
for example, had to learn at a very early age "to keep a stiff upper
lip" identify with their parents to the extent that they consider any
form of empathy with a child as emotionalism or sentimentality. As for
the question of guilt, I chose Hitler for the very reason that I know of
no other criminal who is responsible for the death of so many human
beings. But nothing is gained by using the word guilt. We of course have
the right and the duty to lock up murderers who threaten our life. For
the time being, we do not know of any better solution. But this does not
alter the fact that the need to commit murder is the outcome of a tragic
childhood and that imprisonment is the tragic sequel to this fate.
If we stop looking for new facts and focus on the significance within
the total picture of what we already know, we will come upon sources of
information in our study of Hitler that have thus far not been properly
evaluated and therefore are not readily or widely accessible. As far as
I know, for example, little attention has been paid to the important
fact that Klara Hitler's hunchbacked and schizophrenic sister, Adolf's
Aunt Johanna, lived with the family throughout his childhood. At least
in the biographies I have read, I have never found a connection made
between this fact and the Third Reich's euthanasia law. To find any
significance in this connection, a person must be able and willing to
comprehend the feelings that arise in a child who is exposed daily to an
extremely absurd and frightening form of behavior and yet at the same
time is forbidden to articulate his fear and rage or his questions. Even
the presence of a schizophrenic aunt can be positively dealt with by a
child, but only if he can communicate freely with his parents on the
emotional level and can talk with them about his fears.
Franziska Hörl, a servant in the Hitler household when Adolf was born,
told Jetzinger in an interview that she had not been able to put up with
this aunt any longer and left the family on her account, stating simply
that she refused to be around "that crazy hunchback" any longer.
The child of the family is not allowed to say such a thing. Unable to
leave, he must put up with everything; not until he has grown up can he
take any action. When Hitler was grown and came to power, he was finally
able to avenge himself a thousandfold on this unfortunate aunt for his
own misfortune. He had all the mentally ill in Germany put to death,
because he felt they were "useless" for a "healthy" society (i.e., for
him as a child). As an adult, Hitler no longer had to put up with
anything; he was even able to "liberate" all of Germany from the
"plague" of the mentally ill and retarded and was not at a loss to find
ideological embellishments for this thoroughly personal act of revenge.
I have not gone into the background of the euthanasia law in this book
because it has been my main concern to describe the consequences of
actively humiliating a child, by presenting a striking example. Since
such humiliation, combined with prohibiting a child's verbal expression,
is a constant and universally encountered factor in child-rearing, the
influence of this factor in the child's later development is easily
overlooked. The claim that child beating (including spanking) is common,
to say nothing of the conviction that it is necessary in order to spur
the child on to learn, completely ignores the dimensions of childhood
tragedy. Because the relationship of child beating to subsequent
criminality is not perceived, the world reacts with horror to the crimes
it sees committed and overlooks the conditions giving rise to them, as
if murderers fell out of a clear blue sky.
I have used Hitler as an example to show that:
- Even the worst criminal of all time was not born a criminal.
- Empathizing with a child's unhappy beginnings does not imply
exoneration of the cruel acts he later commits. (This is as true for
Alois Hitler as it is for Adolf.)
- Those who persecute others are warding off knowledge of their own
fate as victims.
- Consciously experiencing one's own victimization instead of trying
to ward it off provides a protection against sadism; i.e., the
compulsion to torment and humiliate others.
- The admonition to spare one's parents inherent in the Fourth
Commandment and in "poisonous pedagogy" encourages us to overlook
crucial factors in a person's early childhood and later development.
- We as adults don't get anywhere with accusations, indignation, or
guilt feelings, but only by understanding the situations in question.
- True emotional understanding has nothing to do with cheap
sentimental pity.
- The fact that a situation is ubiquitous does not absolve us from
examining it. On the contrary, we must examine it for the very reason
that it is or can be the fate of each and every one of us.
- Living out hatred is the opposite of experiencing it. To
experience something is an intrapsychic reality; to live it out, on the
other hand, is an action that can cost other people their lives. If the
path to experiencing one's feelings is blocked by the prohibitions of
"poisonous pedagogy" or by the needs of the parents, then these feelings
will have to be lived out. This can occur either in a destructive form,
as in Hitler's case, or in a self-destructive one, as in Christiane
F.'s. Or, as in the case of most criminals who end up in prison, this
living out can lead to the destruction both of the self and of others.
The history of Jürgen Bartsch, which I shall treat in the next chapter,
is a dramatic example of this.