General Discussion

This came from a article on Yahoo!. Most of the names were pretty silly but the last one was very informative.

6. ADOLF

Memories of death camps and fascism have kept parents from christening their kids Adolf for quite some time. But one unlucky youngster acquired the name in 1949. He was the son of William Patrick Hitler—the dictator’s nephew, who moved to America in the 1930s to fight against his uncle. It isn’t clear why William preserved the name, but his four sons (including Alexander Adolf Hitler, now 57) made a pact to never have children in an effort to stunt der Fuehrer’s family tree at its branches.

It was that last line that I thought was very interesting. I never knew that the remaining members of the Hitler family made a pact to end the bloodline.

Here is the rest of the article.

blogs.static.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/20573.html

I think that it is a poor decision to make if he was doing it for "mankind", but if he was doing it for himself:
"to each his own". I heard about this quite some time ago on a History Channel Doc on Hitler's family. At the time I shrugged it off but now it kind of bothers me. Seems like a poor example to set. He should have had kids and raised them to just be good average people.

Originally posted by Laserwolf

I think that it is a poor decision to make if he was doing it for "mankind", but if he was doing it for himself:
"to each his own". I heard about this quite some time ago on a History Channel Doc on Hitler's family. At the time I shrugged it off but now it kind of bothers me. Seems like a poor example to set. He should have had kids and raised them to just be good average people.

Agreed. It's pretty retarded. It wasn't direct blood, and in that sense it is doubtful the DNA that ran through hitlers blood will be completely extinguished.

Seems like a bunch of melodrama to me.

There are still people who admire Adolf Hitler and what he did in this world. In all honesty, he achieved goals that would have been unnattainable by almost anyone else. A blood heir would have been a powerful symbol for others to rally around. They wouldn't go far of course, but still.

Personally, I am glad that he existed. Bear with me a moment. While what he did was deplorable and arguably evil (depending on how you define such), he single handedly resolved a near worldwide economic crisis, and effectively ended religious discrimination in Europe and North America. He also provided an excellent example of where the line is when it comes to scientific advancement. (The whole Aryan race thing, was a perversion of Darwinian principles)

None of this was an intended goal of his, but can still be laid at his feet. Of coure, that is only because he failed.

Aelfinn, might sound weird but I agree with you.  Hitler did push the Germanic peoples to greatness, but he did it in a totally deplorable way.    If he could have achieved the same results without plunging the world into war and slaughtering millions of innocents in his concentration camps he might be considered among the greatest leaders the world has ever seen.   However, he was sick and twisted and had he been caught alive...he should have been totured for he rest of his life in the most painful of ways.

Originally posted by Aelfinn

There are still people who admire Adolf Hitler and what he did in this world. In all honesty, he achieved goals that would have been unnattainable by almost anyone else. A blood heir would have been a powerful symbol for others to rally around. They wouldn't go far of course, but still.

Personally, I am glad that he existed. Bear with me a moment. While what he did was deplorable and arguably evil (depending on how you define such), he single handedly resolved a near worldwide economic crisis, and effectively ended religious discrimination in Europe and North America. He also provided an excellent example of where the line is when it comes to scientific advancement. (The whole Aryan race thing, was a perversion of Darwinian principles)

None of this was an intended goal of his, but can still be laid at his feet. Of coure, that is only because he failed.

I was thinking about this as well...I think that I might just agree with it to some extent.

What's in a name?

While most anyone would agree naming a child Adolf in today's world is just inviting trouble for that youngster down the line, a simple modification would be socially acceptable.

Adolfus. Very few people would pick out the 'adolf' in that. Other names people don't bother to name their kids for obvious reasons:

1.Genghis
2.Napoleon
3.Benedict
4.Judas
5.Jezabel
6.Herod
7.Mao (?)
8.Idi
9.Lucifer
10. And my personal favorite... Darth! :)

Don't even get me started on LAST names.