One lump or two?

Hitler, has only got one ball
The other is in the Albert Hall
Himmler, has something sim'lar
And poor old Goebbels, has no balls, at all



We've all heard that ditty - or a variation on it - at some point, probably in some god-awful World War Two film where the Brits have stiff upper lips and a doughty, pipe-smoking officer, and the Nazis are all...well, a bit shit.

The song is known as the Colonel Bogey March, and most of us - me included - probably think this delightful little piece of poetry has at least some basis in fact. I mean, Hitler did have only one testicle, didn't he? Sure, the other wasn't on display in a large British concert venue, but Hitler was sexually not all there, so to speak. Why else would you invade Poland, and eat vegetarian food, and rant on about the raw deal the Aryans were getting, whilst having untold millions of untermensch slaughtered?

I'm still a big believer in the two Hitler sex myths. As in, these ones:

1) Hitler only had one ball.
2) Hitler was into some WEIRD sexual stuff. Like watching people shit on each other.

God, they're good, aren't they?? They just explain so much. But are they true?

Let's do Myth #1 first. Was Hitler monorchic?

Well, apparently, yes. The evidence suggest he received an injury to his groin (whenever you hear this on Sports Tonight, read: bollocks) during WW1. Also, his commanding officer during this war has stated that a routine VD exam showed Hitler was missing his left testicle. The Soviets released the results of an autopsy during the 1970s also saying as much, but this postmortem has been largely dismissed as a pile of Brezhnev-era bullshit. I mean, whatever was left of the Fuhrer's smoking corpse when the Commies picked it up was probably sans-bollock because of the hasty attempt to cremate it.

Apparently, his doctors during the 1930s and 1940s did not note his missing organ. But, let's be honest, if you had been Hitler's personal medic in 1940, would you have drawn the mad bastard's attention to his loss?

The other theory is that he had syphillis, and had lost his little boy due to the onset of the late stages of the disease. The associated madness could explain his rather erratic behaviour between the years of 1919 and 1945.

Some say the above song was written by the British government as a propaganda tool, designed to send Hitler around the bend by reminding him of his impotence. Myth? Or the most extreme form of bullying ever witnessed in international diplomacy?

Did it even matter? In one online forum, I found this comment:

"Like Miranda said on Sex and the City... "Women don't care. We care about nice arms, great eyes, a big dick... I've never once heard a woman say: 'He had such a big full scrotum.'"

I guess only one person could have ever told us. Eva Braun. And he had the poor bitch poison herself with cyanide.

OK. Myth decidely neither proved nor disproved. What about the second one?

Was Hitler some sort of weird sexual fetishist?

From what I've read, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for this. There are a lot of quasi-Freudian analyses, usually by Jewish guys called Dr. _berg, who assert that Hitler's over-protective mother fuelled his later obsessions with the anal/faecal/buccal regions, and this was why he was such a cad.

Look, he was an arsehole. You don't need to be into amputee-sex or tranny porn to be a headcase. Looking for sexual motivation behind his actions kind of denies the basic inhumanity of his character. And anyway, some of the nicest folks I know like being pooed upon.

I have found it difficult to find any real proof of Hitler's preoccupation with poo, wee or bums. And, as a British citizen, I have to admit that my entire sense of humour is based around these three things, so hey, what's the problem?

My verdict? No watching people shit on each other's chests for sexual gratification.

Also, he fancied his niece. This one is pretty much true. Sounds gross, but Hitler's dad did marry his niece, and together they spawned Adolf. So he wouldn't have found it too weird.

Hitler had two balls. But possibly he had syphillis. He didn't have much sex, but that he did have was with a blond Aryan girl.

Debate over.

The 300 problems I have with this movie...

Whichever way you view it - including through a drug-and-alcohol fuelled haze - The 300 is a shit movie. Leprositic, sexually-depraved Spartan elders, fake-sixpacked David Wenhams, booby-flashing religious oracles: all these images, and more, really give me the crying shits. It's films like this that make my job as a history teacher even harder than it should be. Every day, some snotty-nosed kid asks me a mind-blowingly stupid question like, 'When was Achilles alive?', or 'Why did medieval dragons speak with a Scots brogue?', or, 'Why was Alexander the Great such an arrogant and irritating Irish partyboy?'

Now, I can understand why directors would want to spice up their historical movies a little. Especially if you've settled on making the next Michael Collins or John Howard: the Little Guy from Bennelong. But if there is one event in history which doesn't need any extra spice, then the showdown at Thermopylae in 480BC should be the one. You don't need bluescreen and piles of dead Persians to make that battle look exciting.

Artistic licence is all very well. So is painting muscles on diminuitive Australian actors, or having the guys in sounds make a loud 'thunk' noise every time a Spartan lightly presses his pinky finger against a division of heavily armed Phoenician auxiliaries. But if there is one thing I really can't stand about The 300, it is the portrayal of Xerxes, the mighty King of the Persians.

Compare these two pictures:


The first shows a gigantic, heavily-pierced, near-naked, bejewelled, androgynous, Brazilian actor/model. The second shows Xerxes.

However, unless you're especially interested in Ancient History, you probably think the first one is Xerxes.

This leads us to another problem with The 300. Xerxes is presented to us as the villain of the film, and, as such, he needs to look menacing - and different. Yes, he is wearing a tight pair of briefs, much like Leonidas and crew, but otherwise he is decidedly non-Spartan - tall, bald, feminine, evil - and brown.

Ah, xenophobia. It's always been a necessary component of war movies. Whether it's the cold-blooded German officers of a WW2 flick, the raggedy Iraqis of a Gulf War movie, or the cunning Viet Cong (slippery bastards, dressing like civilians!) in any number of Vietnam films, we do love an enemy who is a bit different from us. And, despite The 300 being set 2500 years ago, in a world we would barely recognise, we still have the good (blond, white, honourable Spartans - our European forebears), and the bad (hordes of dark-skinned Iranians). And look at them - trying to invade Greece! How dare they. Just as treacherous as their deceitful, belligerent descendants.

Look, I know that Frank whatshisname was trying to make a comic book-style, not-entirely-accurate, film about Thermopylae. And some of the scenes are pretty exciting. But film makers need to remember - a lot of people don't rush to the history books to check whether what they've just been told is true. They see the words 'based on true events', and think that they're watching a $120 million documentary.

Anyway, I'm getting off my High Trojan Horse now. I might go and watch a quality historical film, like Alexander.

Curse of the Kennedys?

Watching the news tonight, there was a story about Teddy Kennedy having a seizure and being taken to hospital. The (Channel 10) newsreader linked this event to the infamous 'Kennedy Curse', the supposed belief that the Kennedy clan experiences more than its fair share of misfortune.

Yes, you heard it right. A 76-year old man, who works in a stressful occupation, was hospitalised, and Channel 10 said it was because of a curse.

But, apart from this frivolous invocation of the myth, is there actually any truth to the curse story? I mean, it seems that the Kennedys do get struck by more murders, mishaps and medical emergencies than other uber-wealthy East Coast political dynasties.

I checked the main examples of the Curse to see how plausible the theory is:

1941 - Rosemary, John's sister, was given a lobotomy, due to her increasingly violent and severe mood swings. Her cognitive abilities suffered and she was institutionalised until she died in 2005.

Curse or bad luck? Every slightly wacko rich girl in the 40s was given a lobotomy. Today we pursue them relentlessly in gossip magazines until they top themselves. Rose was probably actually lucky to have been a socialite daughter back then.

1944 - Older brother Joseph dies in a midair explosion whilst flying a secret mission in WW2.

Curse or bad luck? Flying? Secret mission? WW2? Why was anybody surprised when he died?

1955/6 - Jackie Kennedy suffers a miscarriage, and later gives birth to a stillborn daughter.

Curse or bad luck? Don't know if anyone told the Kennedys, but this happens a lot, to regular people. Often a miscarriage is followed by other problems in later pregnancies.

1961 - Patriarch Joseph Kenndy suffers a disabling stroke.

Curse or bad luck? He was 73, for God's sake.

1963 - JFK and Jackie's second son dies after he is born prematurely.

Curse or bad luck? OK, Jackie and John aren't having much luck when it comes to having healthy bubs.

1963 - JFK is assassinated, on the same day his great-grandfather dies.

Curse or bad luck? Now, his great-grandfather must have been bloody ancient by now. He could have gone any day. And we all know about the assassination. But he was the President, he was in a slow-moving open-topped vehicle, in a country with lots of guns and wackos, at a time when the USA was undergoing profound social changes in an uncertain international environment. Again - just a matter of time.

1968 - His brother Robert is assassinated.

Curse or bad luck? If I was the sort of person who hated politicians enough to kill them, and I was going for Bobby Kennedy, then I would probably plump for the symbolic method of taking him out in a similar manner to his dead, famous brother. JFK had already shown that politics can be a violent game in the States - Bobby simply proved the point further. If he and John had settled for jobs as partners in a suburban law firm, they would probably both still be here.

1969 - Ted Kennedy drives his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, killing the passenger.

Curse or bad luck? Ted didn't die. Ted was drunk. Ted had a reckless driving charge already under his belt. Ted went on to serve a long, distinguished career in the US Senate. In fact, seems the curse here was on poor old Mary Jo Kopechne.

1972 - Robert's son is on a plane that is hijacked by Palestinian militants.

Curse or bad luck? So were about 300 other people.

1973 - Jackie's stepson dies in a plane crash.

Curse or bad luck? Stepson? He's not even a Kennedy!

1984 - Robert's son David dies of a cocaine and Demerol overdose.

Curse or bad luck? I think you'll find that it was a lethal combination of expensive drugs, not a curse, that killed the young chap.

1988 - Jackie's stepdaughter dies of drug abuse-related heart failure.

Curse or bad luck? See the last two.

1991 - William Kennedy Smith fights a rape charge in a highly publicised trial. And then acquitted.

Curse or bad luck? The operative word here is, 'acquitted'.

1994 - Jackie Kennedy dies of cancer.

Curse or bad luck? Aged 64. Lots of people have cancer, by the way.

1997 - One of Robert's sons dies in a skiing accident.

Curse or bad luck? Why can't these people die in less glamorous ways? I never heard of a Kennedy dying in a box-crushing accident. OK, seems Robert's side did get a raw deal.

1999 - JFK Jnr. dies in a plane crash.

Curse or bad luck? What is it with the Kennedys and plane accidents? If I even married into the family, I'd be taking trains and ferries for the rest of my life...

So - the verdict?

After reading about the misfortunes to hit the family, I have come to the following conclusions:

1) They indulge in high-risk activities - skiing, flying planes, taking Demerol overdoses, and driving amongst Texans.

2) They are high-profile and therefore are valuable targets. Also, we hear about them a lot. Who knows, there could be a family in western Sydney with a similar attrition rate, but no-one ever mentions the 'Curse of the Smiths from Granville'.

3) They are all mixed up in politics...

4) There are a bloody shitload of them! In fact, good Catholics that they are, the Kennedy clan currently boasts 13 million members in Massachussetts alone. No wonder one of them dies every few years.

5) They are human. Apparently, humans die of cancer, heart failure, and even in plane accidents.

'Busted'. (I'll stop doing that from now on...)

Disney on Ice

So, I finally cracked, and decided to have a crack at a non-travelblog blog. As you are doubtless well aware, there are untold millions out there, just desperate to know exactly what's on my mind. Every day these poor souls scan the net, vainly searching for the latest words of wisdom from Chairman Tom. Well, people, scan no longer. Here I am.

I didn't want to get all political and/or drunkenly abusive, as my mate Sam does on his blog. So I am attempting a slightly different idea. Being a history teacher of no particular repute, how about a history blog? (Hey. You in the front row. Pay attention. History is not boring.)

But not just a history blog (or e-history, as we call it now. Or rather, not.) This one will aim to disprove common historical misconceptions, to break and destroy them, or 'bust' them. Thus my wholly original title - HistBusters. At the end of a post, if a 'myth' has been sufficiently 'busted', then I plan to add a large metallic plaque at the bottom, plainly stating as much. So no copyright issues here, then.

So on we go. Myth Number One. A fave of mine, combining my love of cartoons, fascist sympathisers, and cryogenics. Is Walt Disney frozen somewhere, awaiting the glorious day when scientists have figured out a way to cure lung cancer, revive dead cartoon executives, and resurrect the Fuhrer? Is Disney on Ice?

This one's easy. No he ain't. He died in 1966, and then he was cremated. The documentary and eye-witness evidence is conclusive.

'Busted'.

OK, too easy. From what I've been reading though, this cryonics business isn't as wacko as it sounds. Apparently the first few guinea-pigs back in the 60s didn't fare too well, as the science was in its infancy, and there was a lot of cell damage caused by build-up of ice crystals and the like. Plus, the labs ran out of cash and simply let some of the bodies thaw out. In some cases, they didn't tell the families of the cryo-humans for several years. So a bit of a rude shock when you pop in to see Grandad's perfectly-preserved frozen form, and instead get a Tutankhamun lookalike covered in blowflies.

However, there have been advances in recent years, and it seems that things are looking up for mad, ailing Yanks who have a spare $150,000 or so. Although there is very little chance of rescuing somebody from official, total, clinical death, there is a school of thought saying that if somebody is properly cryo-preserved before their 'information-theoretic death', then there is a fair chance that they will one day be resurrected in some form, possibly only partially and mentally. If you can save the brain and preserve it almost intact within a few hours of clinical death, then some scientists believe that you can hold onto thoughts, memories and the like. And maybe, in the future, other, better, scientists might work out how to retrieve them, much like the guy at the computer shop retrieves my lost files, when some porn site forces my PC towards its information-theoretic death.

It's all very hypothetical and still out-there enough that only a handful of humans - a 100 or so rich, crazy humans - have gone through the process.

And, sadly, Walt wasn't one of them. So no chance of hooking his brain up to some mega-computer and having him write the screenplay to Snow White 2: Dopey's Violent Revenge.

And was the old de-animated, never-to-be reanimated, animator, a closet Nazi?

Well, seems he was a teensy bit anti-Semitic. But wasn't everyone back in the 30s? And he did hate communists. He was a rich Yank, for god's sake, what do you expect?

But he did secretly lend support to Leni Reifenstahl, the Nazi film-maker, even after the horrors of Kristallnacht in 1938. And he did, apparently, attend meetings of a pro-Nazi American group called the German American Bund.

And he had that silly little moustache. Yeah, fuck it, he was a Nazi.

Next week. Let's get to the bottom of the Pluto-Goofy controversy. Why does Goofy wear pants and talk, while Pluto is naked and barks? They're both dogs, goddammit.