Hitler's Mountain Home

Didn't someone post this article on babble years ago? 

Coincidentally, last night I was finishing Stephen Ambrose's Band of Brothers, wherein the members of E Company took up residence in the Eagle's Nest, drank up the contents of Hitler's wine cellar, and shot up his car collection.

That is interesting that they declare it Hitler's one and only home, considering he also had one on Vancouver Island just outside of Sooke proper. It is still called The Grouse Nest.

Yep really, very interesting place with weird vibes.

I found this map of Hitler's homes/HQs on wikipaedia.  It is only wikipaedia, mind you, but the absence of a Hitlerian abode on Vancouver Island is striking.  The lucrative possiblilities for a sequel to Das Boot, filmed in Canada, should not be discounted.

Yeah, he counted on Japanese investors increasing property values.

Jingles wrote:

The US army ransacked the place, but the cars and wine were actually down the valley in Berchtesgaden, in the homes of Goering. Hitler didn't have a wine cellar, since he was a teetotaler. Hmmm, isn't Harper a non drinker too?? 

Hitler was not a teetotaler; that was part of pr campaign developed in the early 30's to make him more ascetic and above the common man.  Anyone who has seen those home movies that were discovered a couple of decades ago will see him drinking wine, drinking sherry, smoking, and eating roast beef, all things that the PR machine said he did not do.

I have no idea about Harper but I am more concerned about the oil executives' hands up his rear than anything else.

Yeah that is why I mentioned the roast beef; there was a period when a doctor advised him not to eat red meat for awhile due to a stomach ailment but he only followed that advice for a few years and that was before the war. And even then he ate lots of fish,  sheep, etc.

During the 30's they developed a whole campaign to develop his image. Part of it was made to appeal to conservative Lutherans and conservative Catholics but also to those where what we would now call New Age.

Had Mel Brooks done that, he'd have been rather typecast as a director, wouldn't he?  Nobody would want to play in his movies because they'd think there would be an obligatory windbreaking scene.

2dawall wrote:

Yeah that is why I mentioned the roast beef; there was a period when a doctor advised him not to eat red meat for awhile due to a stomach ailment but he only followed that advice for a few years and that was before the war. And even then he ate lots of fish,  sheep, etc.

During the 30's they developed a whole campaign to develop his image. Part of it was made to appeal to conservative Lutherans and conservative Catholics but also to those where what we would now call New Age.

My experience of conservative German Lutherans and Catholics is that they do not respond positively to tee-totalling vegetarianism  

Ken Burch wrote:

Oh, yeah, missed the roast beef reference the first time.  Sorry.

I guess I felt compelled to bring that up(being vegetarian myself) because the "Hitler was a vegetarian" canard has often been thrown out to imply that non-carnivores are really, really weird and disturbing.

Also, I saw a special on tv once(might have been The History Channel)that said Hitler had a severe problem with flatulence.  If only Mel Brooks had known of that when he was filming "The Producers".

There is a million problems with arguing 'oh my! but it is impossible that that monster was a vegetarian!' Mainly that there are some serious gaps in the historical record to make the claim on both sides. I find the reflexive vegetarian 'NO CAN'T BE! THIS IS WHAT SO AND SO SAID!' as irritating and ahistorical as idiots who for some reason can't get over other peoples' dietary choices 'HUH!? BUT HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN I'M NOT EATING THOSE GOD DAMNED YAMS!' and so on. So, what does it matter if he is a vegetarian? It isn't like dietary choices magically make a human being good, no more than that choice would make a human monster moral and caring - Hitler loved animals and was a misanthrope with uber-xenophobic views, hyper-nationalist tendencies and a megalomaniacal streak, he may or may not have been a vegetarian. Which of those topics are historically verifiable and important to discussions relating to Hitler's regime and which aren't?

Although 2dawall raised a good point that his image was massaged considerably between the masses of conservative and middle-class Germans in the late 20s/early 30s. Whereas in the early-20s Hitler was more cuddly with the new agey stuff - that was mostly to get rich weirdos to give money to the NSDAP. Mind you, lots of the NAZIs were into the far-out theosophic stuff, Mme. Blavatsky, etc. It is fun, but too much poor scholarship and alarmist conspiracy theorizing exists about NAZI-occult links has diluted its importance in discussions vis a vis the NAZI regime.

remind wrote:

That is interesting that they declare it Hitler's one and only home, considering he also had one on Vancouver Island just outside of Sooke proper. It is still called The Grouse Nest.

Beautiful

I couldn't find any information on his staying there. That would have been all over the interwebs and in history text books. Perhaps it was a property owned by a NAZI-affiliated Canadian and offered as a guest house in Canada? I can't imagine Hitler being allowed to own property in Canada...

Does that mean I should buy remind some "munchies", dude?

Papal Bull wrote:

[There is a million problems with arguing 'oh my! but it is impossible that that monster was a vegetarian!' Mainly that there are some serious gaps in the historical record to make the claim on both sides. I find the reflexive vegetarian 'NO CAN'T BE! THIS IS WHAT SO AND SO SAID!' as irritating and ahistorical as idiots who for some reason can't get over other peoples' dietary choices 'HUH!? BUT HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN I'M NOT EATING THOSE GOD DAMNED YAMS!' and so on. So, what does it matter if he is a vegetarian?  

Uh actually I did refer to considerable historical evidence above; actual films showing him eating meat.

Uh...no...how did you get to THAT?