Best answer: as of 2009 No proof that Hitler Died in the Bunker but there are since the collapse of the USSR statements that Hitler and Eva were alive on the First of May have emerged from some of the Original so called Witnesses

read on

Different versions of Hitler's fate were presented by the Soviet Union according to its political desires. The Soviets maintained Hitler was not dead, but had fled and was being shielded by former western allies. This worked for a time to cause western authorities some doubt. The chief of the U.S. trial counsel at Nuremberg, Thomas J. Dodd, said: "No one can say he is dead." When President Truman asked Stalin at the Potsdam Conference in August 1945 whether or not Hitler was dead, Stalin replied bluntly, "No". However, by 11 May 1945, the Soviets had already had Hitler's dentist, Hugo Blaschke, and his dental technician confirm the dental remains found were Hitler's and Braun's.

In November 1945, Dick White, then head of counter-intelligence in the British sector of Berlin (and later head of MI5 and MI6 in succession), had their agent, Hugh Trevor-Roper, investigate the matter to counter the Soviet claims. and Hitlers file is still marked "Hitlers Location Unknown"

Kempka also stated that he was now certain that Hitler had been cremated on 30th April 1945, and added the claim that the wind had blown Eva's dress, exposing her garters. However, in this respect, Dr Kunz's evidence seems to heavily contradict Kempka - Eva Hitler could not possibly have been cremated on 30th April because Dr Kunz spoke with her on the same night. What's more, on this occasion Eva told Dr Kunz that Adolf Hitler was still alive. Therefore, if Kempka saw any cremation at all on 30th April, the bodies he witnessed being burned were not those of Adolf and Eva Hitler.

Dr Kunz explicitly affirmed seeing Eva Hitler alive on at least two occasions on the evening of 30th April. Kunz told the Soviets he had seen Eva playing with the Goebbels children on that evening and that a little later, between 10 and 11pm, he, Professor Werner Haase and two of Hitler's secretaries had joined her for coffee. On this occasion, Eva told Kunz that Hitler was not yet dead but he "would die when he received confirmation that his will had reached the person it had been sent to". It's hard to imagine that Kunz could have been confused about the date...OR that in the circumstances he could have mistaken Eva Hitler for someone else or that Eva did not actually know whether Hitler was yet dead or not. Since Hitler's will never reached its intended recipient(s), it is entirely plausible that Hitler would not have decided to die until the last possible moment we "know" about - 6.30 pm on 1 May!

The third Western Allied "eyewitness account account, given to US interrogators by Erich Mansfeld on 30th July 1945 - which referred to a cremation on either the 26th or 27th April - establishes beyond doubt that there were numerous cremations in the Chancellery garden and that at least some of the eyewitnesses could easily have been mistaken when they asserted that they had witnessed Hitler's cremation! In fact, the first such cremation was observed by Mansfeld while he was on guard duty on the afternoon of 27th April. His statement concludes concludes - "Subject claims there is a possibility these events took place on the 26th instead of the 27th, but is positive it was not later than the 27th of April 1945"

Therefore the earliest six eyewitness accounts - effectively, the only reliable accounts we have - hint that there were SEVERAL cremations of corpses, which were assumed by observers to be those of Adolf Hitler and Eva Hitler, took place in the Chancellery garden SOME TIME between 26th or 30th April,

1/ In each case, the male body wore a pair of Hitler's trousers.

2/ In each case, also, the male body was accompanied by a female who bore a convincing resemblance to Eva Hitler.

according to the witnesses Hitler and Eva were cremated On the 26 27 28 29 30 April or was it 1
May

The strange thing is what THEN happened. Kempka made a SECOND statement once he was told about Karnau's (which he didn't know was corroborated by Kunz) He made it on the 2nd of July, and said that Karnau MUST have been mistaken, for the body was definitely covered, and that Karnau must have witnessed some OTHER two bodies being burned! Strange, that....for we ALREADY have a major time discrepancy about events, and a possible second set of cremations, courtesy of Mengerhausen, Günsche and Rattenhuber!!! However, Karnau is corroborated unexpectly by Kunz, so if ANYONE in this tale saw a second, spurious cremation - it was Kempka.

which leaves us only One question where is Hitlers and Eva's Body it was never found in Berlin in 1945

So I know this might sound a little ridiculous, but nowadays you can't be too sure. Someone left a pumpkin at my mailbox, and I have no idea who it was. I've left it sitting there for a few days because I'm afraid to move it. I'm afraid someone might have rigged it with an explosive, or something similar. I've heard stories about people opening random packages left at their doorstep, and getting killed because of it. I think something similar happened with the bombing in Texas, not too long ago. What should I do with the pumpkin? I looked around it and it doesn't seem to have been cut open to place something inside. But then again, the opening could be on the bottom of the pumpkin. This has never happened before, and I'm scared that some lunatic might have put an explosive in it. I've asked my neighbors about it, and they have no idea who put it there.

I know he conquered Gaul and went to Britain, Greece, and Egypt, but did he ever step foot in Rome

Best answer: I'll drink wine with anyone.

Best answer: White supremacist groups clearly supported Trump. They have supported republicans since the 1060's. The Democratic party did not start the KKK, White conservatives from the south did.

The KKK was not started by the Democrratic party.

The KKK was formally and officially welcomed into the Republican Party in 1948. Anybody claiming that Republicans are not sapported by the KKK is lying…

“The Democratic Party, in the first half of the 20th century, was home to two broad, competing constituencies: southern whites with abhorrent views on race, and white progressives and African Americans in the north, who sought to advance the cause of civil rights. The party struggled with this conflict for years, before ultimately siding with an inclusive, liberal agenda.

“The result was a dramatic shift in both parties. After “Dixiecrats” began their exodus in 1948, and in the wake of LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Republican Party welcomed segregationists who no longer felt comfortable in the Democratic Party. Indeed, in 1964, Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater boasted of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and made it part of his platform.

“It was right around this time when figures like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond made the transition – leaving the progressive, diverse, tolerant Democratic Party for the conservative GOP.

“In the years that followed, Democrats embraced their role as the party of inclusion, while Republicans became the party of the “Southern Strategy,” opposition to affirmative action, campaigns based on race-baiting, vote-caging, discriminatory voter-ID laws, and politicians like Helms, Thurmond, and others.”

Best answer: Two parts: "I know the Noumenon of I" (meditation of Schopenhauer);
and, "I am the only one" (this is illogical; rather, one's Schopenhauerian knowing has no absolute certitude re otherness).

Descartes' solipsism was simply radical epistemological questioning; Descartes intuited or discerned Mind, God, the One, as informing and guiding Descartes' knowing of self. Hence, Cartesian "I think, therefore I am" is not true solipsism, as Descartes' "I think" reflects Mind, his God..

Schopenhauer's intuition of "will" was that of inchoateness, rather than Descartes' "The Father and I are of one Mindness." This "noumenal quality" is the extent of Schopenhauer's awareness of Noumenon, hence frames his "solipsism."

Therefore, it is evident that the awareness of solipsism is dependent upon the thinker's presence. If anomic, as with Schopenhauer (not to mention the Sartres), then solipsism is more pronounced. If a Descartes, Plato, Plotinus, or a Whitehead takes a radical epistemological turn, their ontological certitude moves beyond solipsism as a personal enclosure, for these minds understood God, Oneness, hence there is certitude per self (a typical non-radically-questioning philosophical position), with options towards scientific intermonadic community and/or I Am oneness of theology.

Kant's position was transcendentally philosophic: Man philosophically interpreting God (theology, metaphysics thereof) and Nature (science). Kant's distinction between phenomenon and Noumenon ---> science/non-solipsism per sharing protocols re 5-sense data and ---> God as ineffable (hence, a stage beyond Schopenhauer's solipsistic Noumenal meditation--that of God, Mind, which theologians and some philosophers encounter).

Schopenhauer's "noumenal solipsism" reflected his lack of awareness of (or conviction re) God as integral basis of Noumenon. Therefore, there is no real validity in taking up a solipsistic position; as "Amy" said, there is validity in science (and reasonableness in "I-Thou" theology/philosophy), and Kant's dualism disallows solipsism per his "awakening" re Humean solipsism (Hume ~ "I can't be sure of the causality of anything physical, and I deny God Is"), hence the need as perceived by Kant to bifurcate God, Noumenon, for the theologian/metaphysician, and Nature, science, for the intersubjective community of such workers. As Godel and others have shown, even the solipsistic position, at a reasonable level of axiomization, is necessarily incomplete. Thus we are left with Kant's science, Whitehead's process philosophy and theology, and direct insight of e.g. Plotinus ("One Mind Soul"); solipsism is seen to be both necessarily incomplete and practically irrelevant. Wittgenstein addresses this human impossibility of solipsism by his observation that there is no "private language." Ibn Tufayl's "Hayy Ibn Yaqzan" addresses the movement from solitude to wisdom, and this shows at least part of the spectrum of philosophical thought as one's solitary psychological awareness moves towards the Light of the One. The use of "solipsism" as an epistemological focus is seen in Descartes--questioning various paradigms or axiomizations.

Related:
"There's Something about Godel;"
"Return to the One: Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization;"
"A Philosophy of Universality;"
"On Certainty," Wittgenstein;
"Hayy Ibn Yaqzan: A Philosophical Tale," Ibn Tufayl.

Why ?

They can be about anything. I’m interested.