hidden_hitler_by_lothar_machtan

Homosexuals Were Persecuted in Nazi Germany … By Other Homosexuals

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Winger-left blowhard Ed Schultz got a mention on Drudge today, for sending out a Tweet that said, “Gay people were really the ones being persecuted in Hitler’s Germany.”

While 10,000-15,000 homosexuals were likely to have died at Hitler’s hands (which is 10,000-15,000 too many), Schultz blithely and blindly ignores the plain historical fact that that number pales in comparison to the six million Jews who were gassed or shot by Hitler’s goons.

What Schultz overlooks, perhaps out of sheer historical ignorance, is that the persecution of homosexuals in Hitler’s Germany was carried out by other homosexuals.

Hitler was seeking to revive the Greek ideal of the hyper-masculine homosexual warrior, and thus gathered around him homosexuals like himself to serve with him in his sinister designs for the world.

The man who served as the director of the Institute of Sexology in 1930 wrote that “not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal.” Noted historian William Shirer, in his monumental work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, observed of the “brown-shirted S.A.” that “many of its top leaders, beginning with its chief, Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts.”

Adds historian H.R. Knickerbocker, “(Ernst) Roehm, as the head of 2,500,000 Storm Troops, had surrounded himself with a staff of perverts. His chiefs, men of rank of Gruppenfuhrer or Obergruppenfuhrer, commanding units of several hundred thousand Storm Troopers, were almost without exception homosexuals. Indeed, unless a Storm Troop officer were homosexual he had no chance of advancement.”

So if Hitler’s officers and enforcers were hyper-masculine homosexuals, who were the homosexuals they persecuted? The objects of Nazi wrath were soft, effeminate homosexuals whom the Spartan S.A. despised.

Prior to Hitler’s assumption of power, homosexuality, known as “the German vice” was a crime. Those who were apprehended were sent for evaluation to the Institute of Sexology. Thus many of Hitler’s officers had patient records in this institution which he could not allow to see the light of day.

Thus, in 1930, Hitler burned the Institute of Sexology to the ground to obliterate evidence of Nazi sexual proclivities.

According to Ludwig L. Lenz, the assistant director of the Institute of Sexology at the time, said, “We had a great many Nazis under treatment at the Institute. Why was it then, since we were completely non-party, that our purely scientific Institute was the first victim which fell to the new regime? The answer to this is simple … We knew too much … Our knowledge of such intimate secrets regarding members of the Nazi Party and other documentary material — we possessed about forty thousand confessions and biographical letters — was the cause of the complete and utter destruction of the Institute of Sexology.”

Homosexual advocates often cite the “Night of the Long Knives,” in which Roehm and other S.A. officers were assassinated, as evidence of Hitler’s antipathy toward homosexuals.

However, the noted German historian Lothar Machtan, in his book The Hidden Hitler, written in 2001, argues that Hitler had Roehm killed for another reason: Roehm was about to out Hitler to the German public, to expose Hitler’s own twisted sexual orientation, in a bid to remove Hitler from power and take the reins of Germany into his own hands. Roehm, in other words, was killed to protect Hitler’s power and his sexual secrets.

One historian put it this way, “Ernst Roehm wasn’t shot because the Nazi Party felt outraged by the abrupt discovery that he was ‘having’ his storm troopers — that had been known for ages; but because his sway over the SA had become a menace to Hitler.”

So when Ed Schultz says that homosexuals were persecuted by Hitler, he is half right. The other half is that that persecution was carried out by other homosexuals. That half of the story is at least as important as Schultz’s half, but it’s the half that Ed Schultz and other members of the Gay Gestapo hope you never hear about. Well, now you have.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio. Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”)

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

comments

  • portertx

    So then all the religious ant-gay bigots whom have been caught in gay acts – are actually the fascists of today….there is something to be said for the old adage “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”…

    • Laurie Higgins

      Wow! Another wild “progressive” leap from what I actually said–well, what Johann Hari. Neither I nor Hari claimed that all fascists were homosexual. Nor did Hari claim that all homosexuals are fascists. So, your comment is just nonsensical.

      • portertx

        “gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist” that there Laurie is a huge generalization. Now if you said that “some gay men” … then you would be correct.

        Are you and Hari stating that no-one at the heart any major fascist movement was heterosexual? Hitler, Mussolini were heterosexual were they not?

        • Laurie Higgins

          First, I don’t speak for Hari. He speaks through his article, which I assume you’ve read.
          The statement “gay men have been at the heart of every fascist movement” necessarily means “some.” There was nothing in Hari’s article to suggest that he was saying “only gay men were at the heart of every major fascist movement.” The statement says clearly that there have been homosexual men at the heart of every fascist movement. The point is to correct the myth that homosexuals have always and only been victims of fascism–never fascists.
          If you read the article, you would know that he was not claiming that all homosexuals are fascists, that all fascists are homosexual, or that no heterosexuals are fascists.
          If a sentence were to state “there have been women at the heart of every major humanitarian relief effort,” no one would say, “the writer should have said ‘some’ women.” No good reader would interpret such a statement as to mean “only women have been at heart of every major humanitarian relief effort.”

          • portertx

            Lets be honest here — what exactly is the agenda every-time that people like Scott Lively attempt to link Nazi and Gays?

            “The growing awareness of the role gay men play in fascist movements has been abused by some homophobes. In an especially nutty work of revisionist history called ‘The Pink Swastika’, the ‘historian’ Scott Lively tries to blame gay people for the entire Holocaust, and describes the murder of gay men in the camps as merely “gay-on-gay violence.” A typical website commenting on the book claims absurdly, “The Pink Swastika shows that there was far more brutality, rape, torture and murder committed against innocent people by Nazi homosexuals than there even was against homosexuals themselves.”:

            Just as there were homosexual Nazi, there were heterosexual Nazi, and even I am certain even Christian Nazi that worked the camps. And yes Christians claim to be victims also.

            Just as there are Christian leaders whom are anti-gay – yet have been caught repeatedly with their hands in the gay cookie jar.

            Just as there are Christian leaders whom are anti-adultery – yet have been caught repeatedly with their hands in the adultery cookie jar.

            Just as there are Christian leaders whom are anti-child molestation – yet have been caught repeatedly with their hands in the molestation cookie jar.

          • Laurie Higgins

            But the stories of the moral failings of Christians are exposed with regularity and enthusiasm by our Leftist press. Our biased press is not quite so eager to trumpet the moral failings of homosexuals. Doing so might undermine their mythical narrative, their political machinations, and their moral revolution.
            You’ve talked a lot about everything BUT Hari’s central and fascinating point.
            I wonder if high school social studies classes will be teaching about the presence of homosexuals as not just victims in Nazi Germany, but as Nazi victimizers as well. What do you think?

          • portertx

            Well since there is such a backlash of religious zealots that do not want any thing homosexual being taught in school … I guess not.

          • Laurie Higgins

            So, you think “progressives” will release their grip on public education to accommodate the desires of people of faith who don’t want their children exposed to Leftist assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality? Surely, you jest. “Progressives” not only present to students resources that espouse their assumptions, but they also engage in de facto censorship of any and all resources that dissent from their dogma. That violation of sound pedagogy should offend anyone who truly values education.

          • portertx

            Right — that is why there are right wing zealots on the Texas Board of Education trying to rewrite the history books and down play historical figures that just don’t jive with the “religious” agenda.

            As for the nature of homosexuality it exists in nature…it is not something new.

            The funny thing about morality is that is tends to be in flux on various issue – Slavery, Women Voting, etc….

            “engage in de facto censorship” — really I would put this much more in you camp than mine, OneMillionMoms – attempting censorship at every turn for even words like “Damn”….. Also you know book banning: Some of the most frequently banned or challenged books,

            1. The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald
            2. The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger
            3. The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck
            4. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
            5. The Color Purple, by Alice Walker
            6. Ulysses, by James Joyce
            7. Beloved, by Toni Morrison
            8. The Lord of the Flies, by William Golding
            9. 1984, by George Orwell

            11. Lolita, by Vladmir Nabokov
            12. Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck

            15. Catch-22, by Joseph Heller
            16. Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
            17. Animal Farm, by George Orwell
            18. The Sun Also Rises, by Ernest Hemingway
            19. As I Lay Dying, by William Faulkner
            20. A Farewell to Arms, by Ernest Hemingway

            23. Their Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neale Hurston
            24. Invisible Man, by Ralph Ellison
            25. Song of Solomon, by Toni Morrison
            26. Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell
            27. Native Son, by Richard Wright
            28. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, by Ken Kesey
            29. Slaughterhouse-Five, by Kurt Vonnegut
            30. For Whom the Bell Tolls, by Ernest Hemingway

            33. The Call of the Wild, by Jack London

            36. Go Tell it on the Mountain, by James Baldwin

            38. All the King’s Men, by Robert Penn Warren

            40. The Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien

            45. The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair

            48. Lady Chatterley’s Lover, by D.H. Lawrence
            49. A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess
            50. The Awakening, by Kate Chopin

            53. In Cold Blood, by Truman Capote

            55. The Satanic Verses, by Salman Rushdie

            57. Sophie’s Choice, by William Styron

            64. Sons and Lovers, by D.H. Lawrence

            66. Cat’s Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut
            67. A Separate Peace, by John Knowles

            73. Naked Lunch, by William S. Burroughs
            74. Brideshead Revisited, by Evelyn Waugh
            75. Women in Love, by D.H. Lawrence

            80. The Naked and the Dead, by Norman Mailer

            84. Tropic of Cancer, by Henry Miller

            88. An American Tragedy, by Theodore Dreiser

            97. Rabbit, Run, by John Updike

          • Laurie Higgins

            “Right wing zealots” do not control curricula in public schools. Leftists do. I worked in a public high school on the North Shore of Chicago for ten years. On the topic of homosexuality, students were exposed to homosexuality-affirming resources every year starting freshman year. These included GLSEN-created activities, films, novels, speakers, assemblies, essays, and newspaper and magazine articles. In the entire four years, students were not presented with so much as a single essay written by a conservative scholar.
            If you search the data base of virtually any public high school using the search terms “homosexuality,” “lesbian,” “gay,” “LGBT,” or “sexual orientation,” you will find that depending on the size of the high school, it will have anywhere from 50-150 resources. Of those, the ones that have a single perspective (as opposed to resources created for debate classes), most schools will have zero resources that espouse a conservative perspective.
            Liberals get their panties in a wad when a mother tries to get one book removed from a library or reading list but say nothing about the absolute censorship of all conservative resources from public school libraries and curricula on the topic of homosexuality. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
            Almost all of the books you listed are taught at most public high schools, so what you provide as evidence of conservative book-banning is really evidence of the failure of conservative book-banning. Now the Left, they’re much better at book-banning. If you’re really concerned about intellectual freedom, critical thinking, and diversity, you should be apoplectic about the wholesale banning of conservative resources on the topic of homosexuality (not to mention Critical Race Theory/ Critical Pedagogy/”teaching for social justice”/and other “white privilege” materials, which teachers love and dump on kids with no dissenting resources).
            While you list books that are “challenged”–rarely successfully–you say nothing about the scandalous ideological monopoly in public schools on the topic of homosexuality.

          • portertx

            I do not support censorship at any level. If a parent does not want their child to read a book – then that parent should have that right. An alternative book should be made available for the student. I do not believe one parent or even a group of parents should be able to censorship literature liberal or conservative from a library as a whole.

            It wasn’t that long ago there there were no resources for LGBT students. While you may not agree that they students be provided any positive resources, i will disagree as there has been plenty of negative resources for decades prior.

            Just as i am for a comprehensive sexual education including abstinence…I am wholly against any abstinence only stance as it is a short coming.

          • Laurie Higgins

            Name one resource presented to students to study in public schools that presented homosexuality negatively.
            The liberal monopoly in library collections is not the result of one parent or group of parents. It’s the result of the ideological imbalance of public high school faculty and administrations as well as the de factor censorship policies known benignly as “Collection Development Policies.”
            While you said parents should have the right to opt their child out of reading books, you said nothing about the failure/refusal of teachers to include in their curricula materials that espouse ideas from both sides of highly controversial topics. The problem isn’t always what books they include, but what resources and ideas they intentionally exclude–which is never deemed “book banning.”

  • garybryson

    more of bryans delsuions

  • OnlyMyHumbleOpinion

    How convenient that the institute of sexology with all the EVIDENCE this author mentions was burned to the ground. How convenient that despite what the majority of historians believe, Roem was killed for a conspiratorial theory. This article is full of supposition presented as fact.

  • L1011

    These claims are nothing but rehashed garbage from that book The Pink Swastika which had been largely discredited by most reputable historians.

    • Laurie Higgins

      Are you asserting that Johann Hari and Lothar Machtan’s claims are “rehashed garbage”?

  • Cheyenne W.

    Wow! Another really special report from Bryan Fischer… They’re always such an interesting work of fiction. Must have a really colorful imagination.

  • Vicky Fisher

    The right claims to love LGBT folks but all they do is write about fear,disease,and seem to blame gays and attach any historical atrocity them.
    Scott and others like him will there so called history stand the test of time or end up beinging just lacking in facts and propaganda like so called historian David Barton. Time will tell.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!