Klara Polzl was born in Austria in 1860. At age 16, she was working as a housekeeper for her future husband, Alois, and married him in January of 1885. Their first son, Gustav, was born 4 months later.
Daughter Ida was born in the fall of 1886. Both children died of diphtheria during the winter of 1887-1888, while still small children. Just before they died, in 1887, she had another son Otto, but he died the same year he was born - all three children dying close together.
Klara and Alois were to have two more sons and then another daughter. One of the sons, Edmond, died of the measles when he was five. So she only had two children who survived childhood, one boy and one girl.
Klara has been described by a biographer as "...a large girl, almost as tall as her husband, with dark brown hair and even features." I'm not sure what "even features" means. "Even" as opposed to "odd," I suppose. The biographer indicated Klara's adult life was spent keeping house and raising children. One would have to note that she was only marginally successful at the latter, but perhaps that's too cruel a thing to say. Alois was not all that interested in either of those things. He died in 1903 and left Klara a pension from his government job.
Klara was a devout Roman Catholic and took her children to church regularly. Four years after her husband, in 1907, at age 47, Klara also died - of iodoform poisoning, a drug used in the treatment of breast cancer. She was buried near Linz.
Now, this doesn't seem like a very important woman, I know. She had a short, rather tragic life, and didn't really accomplish that much, by most standards. Yet, the fact that Klara once lived was to affect the entire world.
You see, when she married, she took Alois' last name of course, and Alois' last name was Hitler, and the name of her surviving son was Adolf.
---------
Update: "Adolf challenged my father to extreme harshness and got his sound thrashing every day. He was a scrubby little rogue, and all attempts of his father to thrash him for his rudeness and to cause him to love the profession of an official of the state were in vain. How often on the other hand did my mother caress him and try to obtain with her kindness where the father could not succeed with harshness ..." (Paula Hitler) Follow this link
Wow. Too bad he didn't die of diphtheria.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if she rolled around in her grave later on... then again, I wonder if he learned anything from her, if some of his hate sprang from her.
Most of all, I wish we could figure out what led to Hitler's own psychosis...
Fascinating stuff. I believe "even" features mean symmetrical... as opposed to asymmetrical.
It *is* fascinating. I've often thought that it wasn't what happened to people that made them snap but how they reacted to it.
ReplyDeleteSome people can face unspeakable horrors and come out stoic and patient and resigned. Or perhaps they come out scared. Or broken by their pain. We'll see some of that in Haiti. Many of the survivors of the Holocaust dealt with that.
Sometimes, however, you come out bitter, blaming those who hurt you (or those you perceive as hurting you) and building a truly ugly hatred within yourself. That's why people can lash out with hatred at those who try to help during a natural disaster - for not coming fast enough or with enough.
If Adolph's mother felt like someone else was to blame for the death of her children (and losing children, so common back then, is a tragedy I can't even being to imagine), she could readily have communicated that hatred to her son. But then, perhaps it is instead something he developed himself as he found a way to blame others for her death or for whatever else was wrong with his life. I doubt we'll ever know.
Where ever he got the idea, blaming others for what happened to him (and eventually to the German public) was a common theme.
One man with so much hatred that he infected a whole segment of the world with it, attracting the worst evil to his side in the process, giving them a venue for their worst inclinations.
Talk about a plague.
I find it interesting that Klara and Alois might have been related (possibly very closely) by blood and that she also raised to step children from Alois' previous marriage.
ReplyDeleteSee, you got me to studying.
The liberation of Auschwitz liberation - 65 years 4 days ago - has been marked this week.
ReplyDeleteMaking History by Stephen Fry is an interesting book about a world without Hitler, but still filled with Nazis and hatred and all the other odd and amazing stuff to come out of WWII.
ReplyDeleteHitler's Willing Executioners has always made perfect sense to me-good old Adolph didn't twist the arm of every person in Germany to make them do these horrid acts-they did them of their own free will.
I've always found it amazing that Hitler was a pretty good artist and that he would have likely become a painter if someone had given him encouragement at the right moment, but of course, no one did.
I had another thought, what if all the other kids had lived and they turned out just as nasty as Adolph?
ReplyDeleteEven is an old fashioned way of saying evening, so the biographer was using a euphemism to say she had bedroom eyes. Or that she looked better in the dark. Take your pick.
ReplyDeleteYikes, I didn't see where this one was going...I did feel sorry for Klara though.
ReplyDelete@shakespeare - I don't think any of his hate sprang from her. Maybe the fact that his father beat him every day had something to do with it. His mother was just the opposite of his father, trying hugs and love instead of thrashings. (He came home from school late every day and was beaten.)
ReplyDeleteI personally think Hitler, along with millions of Germans (he was Germanic but not a German), felt the burning humiliation that ground every German's face, and everything German into the ground following World War One, and that the country was ripe for a redeemer. Scapegoating was needed for the resurrection. To say he went overboard in his objective of restoring the German pride is obviously an incredible understatement.
But I don't think he had a psychosis. He was very much in touch with reality. My opinion, of course.
@Stephanie B - So you think Hitler did what he did for some sort of personal aggrandizement? An ego trip? (I know you do; I've read some of your posts on the subject. I don't agree, as you know.)
ReplyDeleteI think he was very very clear about who caused Germany's humiliation and misery, just as the South clearly knew who had decimated their states and their lives and their pride after our Civil War. But a Hitler did not emerge in the South to restore their pride.
However, in Germany's case, it was payback time for their humiliation by their conquerors.
I'm not taking their side: I'm glad they got their strutting asses kicked in World War One. I'm only saying they were left so abject and empty by their conquerors after World War One, with only an occasional kick to keep them down, that they were ripe for a messiah, and one appeared.
@A. - I didn't know that. I mean about the anniversary. What a horror. What an evil man Hitler was.
ReplyDelete@Descartes - I know you have an interest in "alternative history", as I have read some of the points you've made on your blog in the past. Some of us, you included, even speculated about things like what if Robert Kennedy had lived and like that. It is an excellent niche of fiction. Maybe even fascinating. You are right of course, that there was a whole cadre of "good men" who needed no arm-twisting and probably egged Hitler on by their flattery and ass-kissing. Our friend Stephanie has written several interesting posts recently about just that subject - of people "just following orders" or who wouldn't stand up for right, or who somehow love to do evil inside, even if they are "respectable" on the outside. Odd that you should mention Hitler being a good painter. He had wanted since childhood to be an artist. Or an architect. But his country came first and, he thought, he had a higher calling. But he painted all his life.
@Shakespeare - I mean not psychotic in the clinical dictionary sense of being out of touch with reality, but certainly "deranged". I agree with you on that.
ReplyDelete@Descartes - What a thought! But his surviving sister Paula seemed meek enough. What if it had been Otto too! Otto the terrible!
ReplyDelete@Sheila - I see. Well, if it is truly up to me to take my pick, I choose to think she looked better in the dark.:)
@Alison - Hello Alison. I tried for a surprise O. Henry ending. (Now you will have to look up O. Henry. ) :) How are you?
Relax Max, I do not understand where you get that. Where did I say anything about Hitler was all about aggrandizing himself? I said he was all about blame and hatred:
ReplyDelete[Where ever he got the idea, blaming others for what happened to him (and eventually to the German public) was a common theme.
One man with so much hatred that he infected a whole segment of the world with it, attracting the worst evil to his side in the process, giving them a venue for their worst inclinations.]
which you countered by saying he knew who to blame.
[I think he was very very clear about who caused Germany's humiliation and misery, just as the South clearly knew who had decimated their states and their lives and their pride after our Civil War.]
(Seriously, if you insist on telling me what I think, you should be able to cough up cut and pastes. I'll wait. Also, I refuse to defend points I'm not making and don't see anyone making except for you in your role as Stephanie whisperer. Hint, I can speak for myself, thank you, and say what I think without an interpreter. If I decide to take one, I get to pick who it will be and I'll be looking for someone who at least approximates what I'm intending to say. Sorry.)
Having addressed one of my pet peeves, I have to question your statement. Are you saying that Hitler was right in saying Jews, gays, gypsies, cripples were the reason Germany had been trodden down? Or were they just handy targets since the countries who'd kicked 'em hard after WWI (and they did with surpassing harshness) weren't quite so readily damaged. They did end up getting a kicking in return, but they could fight back. The traitors-in-our-midst thing is much harder to combat.
The situation was similar in the South, admittedly, except, as it was for Germany, it wasn't just treatment from the North that decimated the South, but their clinging to an outdated (and impractical) economic mode and adherence to a war fought almost entirely on their own soil that decimated a generation and bankrupted the nation. The callous and tyrannical treatment from the Northern Republicans was just adding insult to their at least somewhat self-inflicted injury.
Not even sure why we're arguing. We seem to agree Hitler was evil: "What an evil man Hitler was."
@Stephanie B - I really don't want to offend you; we've been getting along fairly well lately - but this habit of yours of saying things in black and white, blogging about them, clearly espousing certain opinions, and then acting as if you never said them, is getting tiresome and I'm going to start calling you on them. I realize it isn't that polite, but you continue to ask for examples and now you even ask for a cut and paste. Have it your way.
ReplyDeleteFrom your comment above:
"Relax Max, I do not understand where you get that. Where did I say anything about Hitler was all about aggrandizing himself?..."
And:
"(Seriously, if you insist on telling me what I think, you should be able to cough up cut and pastes. I'll wait."
Thank you for waiting. Here is your cut and paste:
"Where we went from there was a discussion on what it took to be the kind of power-craving type, the kind that yearned to rule the world, who hungered for control.
"...The need to control others, to receive acknowledgment, in my opinion, most often stems from self esteem issues. Not to say one couldn't be a megalomaniac, but that, to crave acclaim, you need to insecure, no matter how you look on the outside."
The above was blogged by you about a year ago, and the words appeared under a picture of Adolf Hitler. I KNOW who you were talking about when you said things like "power-craving type" and "the kind that YEARNED to rule the world" and "HUNGERED FOR CONTROL" and "the need to receive acknowledgment" and "self-esteem issues" and "crave acclaim". I know very well you were applying this analysis to Adolf Hitler, the man in the picture you used to illustrate these words. Your words and your opinion are there for the world to see: you asserted that Adolf Hitler was driven by ego; craved power; yearned to rule the world; hungered for control.
I can't prove your above words are not true and my own theory is correct. And I don't want to; my own words are only an opinion. But don't keep saying you don't say things and try to make me look like an idiot. You said the words. Own them. Defend them. or say you've changed your mind because of my "Love of Germany" theory. But don't just argue you didn't say them so you don't have to defend them.
You didn't say them in this comment, true. But I have formed an opinion of your beliefs and philosophy based on the entire body of your writing that I have read over the past year. And I have a right to do that.
You can have an opinion of anything you want, Relax Max. I can't stop you. But I won't defend those opinions you created by putting pieces together of things I've said over the year (picture on a generic discussion with some opinions in that discussion) and then applying them in specifics.
ReplyDeleteI don't pretend to know what went on in Hitler's mind. I have theories on how insecurity can play into many who crave power (and I used his photo as an example of someone who wanted to rule the world - his relation to any of the rest I spoke about, which was all about the "mad scientist who wants to rule the world" is not direct).
Seriously, Relax Max, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what I'm *really* saying. (It took me four different searches to find that post). What's wrong with just addressing the comments I actually say within the context of the discussion we're having?
I don't argue with you when you seem to defend something you applauded earlier. If you want to be inconsistent, that's up to you. I try to limit myself to the discussion at hand. And, no, things don't always look the same to me. I'm not into black and white at all. If you're reading that into my posts, I'm quite confused.
I'm confused as to what you think I think outside of that discussion has to say to the discussion we're having.
Do I think self-aggrandizement was part of Hitler's legacy? Now that you mention it, yeah (though I really hadn't thought about it before you told me I thought so). Otherwise it would have been Heil Germany (or the German word for Germany) instead of Heil Hitler. But I hardly think it was his only motivation. There are a lot less destructive ways to get noticed.
Who says people like Hitler have simple and straightforward motivations? Or just one?
@Stephanie B - Do you think Hitler was a power mad egomaniac? Do you think he manipulated his way to the top just so he could feel like a king?
ReplyDeleteI guess asking you straight out is a lot easier.
It is a lot easier. Now that I know what you're asking, I can think about the question and give you an answer with my reasoning. Note, however, these are just my thoughts and should not be confused with historical fact.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if he was a power-mad egomaniac when he started his journey to power, but I think he ended up that way. I have no doubt that he knowingly manipulated people to further his own plans, though I don't think he wanted to just be "king". Rather, I suspect he thought he knew what was best for Germany and saw seeking power (and the manipulation required to do so) as a means to save Germany. I think he saw himself as something of a savior of Germany and the "Aryan Race". As such, as an almost messiah for his chosen people, any and all adulation he received was merited in his own mind.
But, I think the reason he was so certain Germany needed him at the controls was part and parcel with his own need to feel in control One reason I think so is the trouble he had fighting for what he his artistic dreams(and the bars to his dream, both from his father and unwittingly self-inflicted). If one feels restricted, helpless, it can be devastating and makes you long for a situation where one has control of one's destiny.
I could readily imagine (speculation, not fact here) that, particularly if he equated his own situation with the rather put upon situation Germany struggled under at the time, he could fight for "Germany" and his own dreams of being in control of his destiny at the same time.
I'm guessing that he might not have begun as megalomaniac, completely absorbed with self. If I remember correctly, what he did in the early parts weren't nearly so self-centered as his actions later on.
I also have no trouble accepting the notion that (a) he felt he was working in the best interests of Germany and the "Aryan race" and (b) that adulation by his subjects was therefore justified. I have a hard time believing that he didn't revel in the Hitler worship and adulation.
Do I think he actively acknowledged his own evil? I very much doubt it. I would guess that his sociopathic tendencies had been extended to cover all of Germany as long as he was in charge, that he thought his actions were necessary (not even necessarily evils). I also think that, as he saw how people would do some of the most heinous things at his command, it went to his head and prompted him to demand more and more things just to feel the resultant power when they did it.
Do I think he was a power mad egomaniac? Yeah, in the end, I think he was. Do I think he just wanted to be "king"? No, I think he just wanted to be in charge using any means necessary. It was the control he really wanted (in my opinion). The adulation was a well-earned bonus.
Please replace the third paragraph with this one (I moved and restructured the comment so many times, this paragraph got mangled):
ReplyDelete"But, I think the reason he was so certain Germany needed him at the controls was part and parcel with his own need to feel in control. One reason I think so is the trouble he had fighting for his artistic dreams(and the bars to his dream, both from his father and unwittingly self-inflicted). If one feels restricted, helpless, it can be devastating and makes one long for a situation where one has control of one's destiny. Hitler just took it too far. Way too far.
Interesting!
ReplyDeleteThat's all I have for you today, sorry.
@Angelika - One word from you speaks volumes. :) Especially when I know you aren't at all interested in this stuff. It is good to "see" you around again.
ReplyDelete@Stephanie B - Probably it's best I leave up your original comment and then let those who are reading this make the paragraph change you want. I get it.
The whole point of this was not to have a fight but to debate (without there being a "right" answer) where Hitler was "coming from".
Here I am tempted to just drop it so people reading this won't think I am making excuses for the son of a bitch, because I'm not - this is one of those "theoretical" debates I love so much.
Two more reasons to keep this alive a while longer: (1) a chance to go deeper in villain characters and what makes them tick; (2) I disagree that you can let people like von Braun off the hook by saying he was manipulated; and that certain people simply can't be manipulated. At least the "pure" ones you mentioned in your old post (which I still don't think has been discussed fully.)
My love of argument transcends my fear of being called a Hitler apologist, but my response is too lengthy for a comment and so another post about the subject is in order, if I am to fully put forward my theory on this debate. I apologize to the other readers who are neither history lovers or fictional writers in search of character motivation.