Mein Kampf

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Anybody read this? I just got it today. I'm reading it because I feel the best way to learn about someone is through their writing. If anyone has any comments, please share them.

[Stanislaw]

Hitler was a wingnut, and his book, has very little merit. He didn't even write it, it was dictated.

[NewWorldOrder]

Anybody read this? I just got it today. I'm reading it because I feel the best way to learn about someone is through their writing. If anyone has any comments, please share them.
His writing is a propaganda, so if you are a weak personality everything he says will be convincing. In fact he used much social discourse to convince the lower classes since once musn't forget that nazism is the contraction of National and Socialism.

[MiSaNtHrOpE]

I think Mein Kampf and The 700 Club are the same: Peope read or watch them to dismiss the ideas and delve into the minds of madmen.

[Themis]

Hitler's ideas were terrible and so was his writing style. A teacher once read a passage of the book to us and it's unreadable. Aside from that it's forbidden in Austria.



His writing is a propaganda, so if you are a weak personality everything he says will be convincing. In fact he used much social discourse to convince the lower classes since once musn't forget that nazism is the contraction of National and Socialism.

I know someone will probably say that's politics, but still ...
What Hitler wrote and did was terrible and unexcusable. But believing what he wrote - to a certain extent of course and not the part about killing - had nothing to do with being a weak personality, at that time.
If you want to talk about that time, how about you first try understand how people felt a certain way and why?

[starrwriter]

Hitler's ideas were terrible and so was his writing style. A teacher once read a passage of the book to us and it's unreadable. Aside from that it's forbidden in Austria.
That's a mistake. The verboten always attracts young people for the wrong reasons. If it was studied in public schools, the book would be de-mystified.


I know someone will probably say that's politics, but still ...
What Hitler wrote and did was terrible and unexcusable. But believing what he wrote - to a certain extent of course and not the part about killing - had nothing to do with being a weak personality, at that time.
If you want to talk about that time, how about you first try understand how people felt a certain way and why?
If you mean endemic anti-semitism in Austria and Germany at the time, I agree that is important to understand. But "Mein Kampf" also appealed to people looking for someone to follow and provide a scapegoat explanation of dire problems arising from defeat in the war. I'd call that intellectually weak.

[Themis]

That's a mistake. The verboten always attracts young people for the wrong reasons. If it was studied in public schools, the book would be de-mystified.

If you've ever read a passage of that book in its original form you wouldn't say that. It can't be possibly read.




If you mean endemic anti-semitism in Austria and Germany at the time, I agree that is important to understand. But "Mein Kampf" also appealed to people looking for someone to follow and provide a scapegoat explanation of dire problems arising from defeat in the war. I'd call that intellectually weak.

I wouldn't. Because it would mean to condemn a nation as a whole. And I don't think any other nation - people - would have acted differently. Because at first (most) people merely wanted someone to help them find a way to rebuild their lifes.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

If you've ever read a passage of that book in its original form you wouldn't say that. It can't be possibly read.


The only reason you shouldn't be able to read it is because you can't read English. And since you're understanding what's being written in these posts, we can rule that out. With that said, this book isn't a fourth grade reading level and it takes some time to get through it. I'm a junior in high school and I'm reading it. Why? Because I think it's important to understand not just what people did, but also the thinking behind it. Most actions are driven by influences. Take away the influences and you've taken away the tendency for the individual to carry out an action. An example would be Hitler's childhood. If his mother and siblings hadn't died so early and if he hadn't hated his father so much, maybe World War Two would have never happened. Or at least the extermination of the Jews wouldn't have occurred. That hate and anger didn't just appear out of nowhere. My point is a bit off topic, but all I'm saying is that many people dismiss great (influential in this sense of the word, not necessarily morally good) works because they are "too hard" to read.


I wouldn't. Because it would mean to condemn a nation as a whole. And I don't think any other nation - people - would have acted differently. Because at first (most) people merely wanted someone to help them find a way to rebuild their lifes.

I'll agree with you on that. Generalizations are almost always bad, and this holds true on the national level. Not every German citizen fully accepted the beliefs of the Nazi party, as widespread as National Socialism was. Just as every soldier in the German Army was not a Nazi. As far as rebuilding Germany, people did want a savoir. Germany had "gotten the shaft" by just about all of Europe and war reparations had caused economic depressions within Germany. They were desperate. That's why Hitler was granted dictorial power by the German Parliament. That and all his political enemies had been eliminated and two thirds of the Parliament had been filled by Nazi legislators.

[Themis]

The only reason you shouldn't be able to read it is because you can't read English.

The book's original form is in German. And by saying it's "unreadable" I meant that the writing style is terrible. Perhaps the translator managed to improve the phrases.



That's why Hitler was granted dictorial power by the German Parliament. That and all his political enemies had been eliminated and two thirds of the Parliament had been filled by Nazi legislators.

More or less, that goes for Austria too. Except for the part about Hitler taking over leadership.

[starrwriter]

... I don't think any other nation - people - would have acted differently. Because at first (most) people merely wanted someone to help them find a way to rebuild their lifes.
Italy acted differently. They were a war ally of Austria/Germany and suffered the greatest combat losses and economic hardships, but Italy didn't build concentration camps to murder Jews as scapegoats.

[Stanislaw]

Italy acted differently. They were a war ally of Austria/Germany and suffered the greatest combat losses and economic hardships, but Italy didn't build concentration camps to murder Jews as scapegoats.

they shipped Jews to concentration camps though, which is worse, building the concentration camp, or shipping people to the said camp?
The Italians were not inoccent, neither was southern france.

[starrwriter]

they shipped Jews to concentration camps though, which is worse, building the concentration camp, or shipping people to the said camp?
Building the camps and doing the actual killing was worse.

The Italians were not inoccent, neither was southern france.
Neither was the U.S., Britain and other countries that refused to accept sizeable numbers of ordinary Jews as political refugees from Nazi Germany. Ironically, the only country that did this was Palestine.

[Stanislaw]

Building the camps and doing the actual killing was worse.

Neither was the U.S., Britain and other countries that refused to accept sizeable numbers of ordinary Jews as political refugees from Nazi Germany. Ironically, the only country that did this was Palestine.

Indeed, there are more then one way to kill a person without actually being the one pulling the trigger.

Saying the Italiens are innocent, is like saying that Hitler is innocent...just because he didn't actually pull the trigger/ release the gas.

a rose by any other name...

[Koa]

Italy acted differently. They were a war ally of Austria/Germany and suffered the greatest combat losses and economic hardships, but Italy didn't build concentration camps to murder Jews as scapegoats.

There were camps (the most famous one was in Fossoli, by Modena if I remember correctly...if you have read Primo Levi) were prisoners went before being taken to the Nazi camps in Germany or Auschwitz or wherever... but this is not the point...
The point is that Italy had racial laws against Jews as well. Signed in 1938 if I'm not wrong, and their one of the reasons why the royal family was sent to exile after the war - having permitted that, amongst all the other things.
Jews were emarginated pretty much like in Germany... Have you seen the movie Life is Beautiful (La Vita è bella) which won the Oscar some years ago?
(btw it was shot in another of those pre-Nazi camps, around Trieste I think).

So Italians didnt murder Jews, they just sent them to the Nazis to kill them... :rolleyes:
But I also suppose that it wasn't Mussolini idea... It was mostly to follow Hitler. The Jews thing is the main one, but Hitler despised many races and believed in the superiority of the Arian race... so to justify this all, it was kinda implied that Italians were related to that race too... Like an Italian was more similar to a German than a random Jew ;) (talking of physical appearence, which mattered to Hitler too in the race thing).

As for the Mein Kampf, I once saw it in a bookshop and I was about to buy it cos I'd be really curious to see what it actually says...Just out of curiosity, not to blame the people who believed it, kinda to see how it persuaded people... Pure Curiosity, to say it shortly. But then I didnt buy it...I guess I would have been a bit embarassed when going to pay...(with all the neo-Nazis around, I didnt want to be mistaken for one of those...) :blush: Silly maybe, but it shows the aura that the book has.

(PS let's just try not to get too political on this..I think so far it's ok, we're discussing history and meanings, but if it goes to far this will be closed...so let's not start to fight ;););))

[Logos]

I don't know how it's really possible to avoid in regards to this book :) but discussion of "current" politics isn't allowed, ie: Holocaust, war etc.

I will have to close the topic if people continue to bring up politics.

Edited to add: Thank you for your PS Koa.

And to clarify: "Current" politics, the Holocaust and war etc. are not necessarily "current" issues, but they're walking a fine line between `history' and `politics'.

[Koa]

Well Logos (I know the forums too well not to have an alarm in my mind whenever anything looks vaguely political ;)), I think that war and Holocaust are just historical facts, and ok I'm aware it's hard to avoid politic, but as long as we try to talk about that historically, as I think it has been pretty much done so far, we should be safe...not sure it will last long, but ok our opinion surely spring out, but if we say 'Austria did this and Italy did that' it's not like saying anything too political..if you see my point...we'll try to behave ;)

[mike-eustace]

Getting back to the original topic, I think that the book can only give someone insight to what went on during Hitler's life. "Poor writing style" might not make it an easily read book, but who would expect it to be anyway. Friend of mine have read it and agree that it's not particularly well written but it is fascinating. Both of them were told by my school that it was inappropriate (we were 18 at the time)! They were unable to find an adult that would back them up except my fantastic but unsuccessful Lit teacher.
ME

[Koa]

Yeah that was my point...it might be badly written and aberrating, but that's the most direct way to know what exactly was Hitler's thought...
Though I dont find it surprising that noone would really accept that your friend read it...

[starrwriter]

I don't know how it's really possible to avoid in regards to this book, but discussion of politics isn't allowed, ie: Holocaust, war etc.
It's not possible to discuss "Mein Kampf" without reference to World Wars I and II and the Holocaust. I assumed only present-day politics was off-limits. If war in general is considered politics, how can we discuss Toystoy's "War and Peace" or Norman Mailer's "The Naked and the Dead" or any other book about past wars? We definitely need some clarification on this point.

[mike-eustace]

:D I think that this thread has been full of carefully considered opinions in a completely construtive manner. It has so far been intresting and objective. Please leave it as it is Logo. I want to hear other peoples thoughts on the subject.
ME

[mike-eustace]

A friend has just told me (looking over my shoulder) that the film released last year 'Downfall', used the book Mein Kampf extensively. I know films aren't usualy discussed here, but has anyone seen the film and read the book? Is it true? I have learnt a lot about WWII throughout my academic life but never from the point of view of the Germans (except perhaps some excellent poetry written by German soldiers). I think that reading the book could only broaden my knowledge. learn from others mistakes etc...
ME

[Logos]

It's not possible to discuss "Mein Kampf" without reference to World Wars I and II and the Holocaust. I assumed only present-day politics was off-limits. If war in general is considered politics, how can we discuss Toystoy's "War and Peace" or Norman Mailer's "The Naked and the Dead" or any other book about past wars? We definitely need some clarification on this point.

I will clarify my first post to "current" politics.

Discussion of WW I or II or the Holocaust, sure Koa that is `history' but it's a fine line between `history' and `politics'. Basically if a topic or discussion is not centred on politics, and /or there is no flaming going on, passing comments are let go.

But anyway sorry for the hijack.. carry on :)

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Mike, the reason I personally think it's so important to read things like "Mein Kampf" is because there's two sides to every story. What the United States saw was very different from what the Nazis saw. Frankly, I think too many people rely on history books and historians for all their information. While both are good sources of information, they are fragmented versions of the truth. History books and historians give you the "American" take on history, because both the historians and the textbook authors are American and are giving you their version of the events through what they have read. Very few books or historians go into why Hitler did what he did. Usually his actions are just said to be wrong, and that is that.

I think what we need to realize is that telling stories is fine, but we need to know why they occur. If it means reading "innapropriate" documents, then so be it. It's only innapropriate because it makes what happened during WWII explainable. Excusable? Definately not, but very much explainable nonetheless. Honestly, I like "Mein Kampf" and see no problem with it. Why do people feel the need to censor what others read? This book is not some sort of infection that will spread if more people read it. Not everyone who reads the book automatically becomes a Neo-Nazi, and to think such a thing assumes that we are robots incapable of any opinionated or logic thinking. Sorry for the rant. Any thoughts?

The Mind Dweller

[Logos]

Hitler was a wingnut, and his book, has very little merit. He didn't even write it, it was dictated.

How do you mean `dictated'? There are/were some great writers who happen(ed) to have secretaries or assistants take dictation and write for them, including E. Phillips Oppenheim.

[starrwriter]

I will clarify my first post to "current" politics. Discussion of WW I or II or the Holocaust, sure Koa that is `history' but it's a fine line between `history' and `politics'. Basically if a topic or discussion is not centred on politics, and /or there is no flaming going on, passing comments are let go.

I understand why current politics is banned because I've seen other writing forums practically destroyed by flame wars over this topic. But Admin should be open to discussions of books about past wars. As I said earlier, I think "Mein Kampf" should be read by anyone who wishes to understand why World War II and the Holocaust happened. They should also read "All Quiet on the Western Front" to see the German perspective on World War I.

[Admin]

World War I happened because of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

World War II happened because Germany invaded Poland... and also because Germany was not adequately punished after WWI.

HBO make a creepy movie called Conspiracy about Hitler's final solution. I recommend it.

[Stanislaw]

How do you mean `dictated'? There are/were some great writers who happen(ed) to have secretaries or assistants take dictation and write for them, including E. Phillips Oppenheim.

Well, while Hitler was in prison he dictated mein kampf to a colleuge (who vollentered to remain in prison with hitler.) The colleuge was extremely anit-semetic, so it is speculated that mein kmapf, instead of being just hitlers work, was more of a collaboration between these two.


World War II happened because Germany invaded Poland... and also because Germany was not adequately punished after WWI.

err, it was not that Germany was not punished enough, they were punished exsesivly, and during the depression, the stipulations in the treaty at versai were not enforced. World War II happened because of the unfair treaty of WWI, blaming Germany for the entire war, something they didn't start, but were infact forced to due to alliences. WWII also occured because of appeasment, Hitler was allowed to creat a German army, remiliterize the rhine land, invade austria and czekoslovakia. (all breaking the stiupulations of the treaty of versaille). WWII only officially started when Hitler invaded Poland, and Stalin created a peace treaty with him.

[Logos]

Well, while Hitler was in prison he dictated mein kampf to a colleuge (who vollentered to remain in prison with hitler.) The colleuge was extremely anit-semetic, so it is speculated that mein kmapf, instead of being just hitlers work, was more of a collaboration between these two.



Ah, interesting, I did not know this, not literally dictating!

[crisaor]

err, it was not that Germany was not punished enough, they were punished exsesivly, and during the depression, the stipulations in the treaty at versai were not enforced. World War II happened because of the unfair treaty of WWI, blaming Germany for the entire war, something they didn't start, but were infact forced to due to alliences. WWII only officially started when Hitler invaded Poland, and Stalin created a peace treaty with him.
Indeed. It was Germany's poor conditions after the WWI that allowed Hitler to gain support, as most germans were eager for vindication. The outrageous conditions of the Versailles treaty (which imposed a burden over Germany that it could've never lift) were already detailed by Keynes in his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, where he explained that the harsh conditions imposed on the defeated could lead to an uprising and produce an even greater crisis, albeit I believe he feared a communist revolt instead of what the nazism was. He pretty much predicted WWII.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Well, while Hitler was in prison he dictated mein kampf to a colleuge (who vollentered to remain in prison with hitler.) The colleuge was extremely anit-semetic, so it is speculated that mein kmapf, instead of being just hitlers work, was more of a collaboration between these two.

Why does that matter? They both had similar views, so if Hitler had written it all himself the book would have probably said nearly the same thing. The only time dictation matters is when the dictator has views opposite to the one whose words are being taken down.

[Aurelius]

If you feel like reading it for the purposes of analysis, then by all means read it. However, it's still longwinded propaganda, and not even well-written propaganda at that.

[Stanislaw]

Why does that matter? They both had similar views, so if Hitler had written it all himself the book would have probably said nearly the same thing. The only time dictation matters is when the dictator has views opposite to the one whose words are being taken down.

well, we don't really know what Hitlers views are and what his partners views are, the reason of reading the book was to get an insight into Hitlers reasoning, however, if it is not just Hitlers reasoning but a collaboration, then it is not as usefull as it could be, instead of being used as a guide to hitler, it should be used as a guide to naziism.

[Stanislaw]

If you feel like reading it for the purposes of analysis, then by all means read it. However, it's still longwinded propaganda, and not even well-written propaganda at that.
you are right on the money.

[Koa]

Discussion of WW I or II or the Holocaust, sure Koa that is `history' but it's a fine line between `history' and `politics'. Basically if a topic or discussion is not centred on politics, and /or there is no flaming going on, passing comments are let go.





I'm perfectly aware of the fine line that separates history and politics, what I was meaning is that as long as we try to speak basing on facts (racial laws were a fact, we're not discussing the opinions we have on them) and not go into political matters, no harm should be done... Which is why I was warning people not to get too political... So far, it's going well I think. :)

Now I'll let the discussion continue too...

[kaka]

Just a little factual point. Those references to "the Italians" and what "they" did or didn't do in WWII are very misleading. As long as Italy was a _voluntary_ ally of Germany (June 1940-July 1943) it did NOT hand over any Jews to the Nazis. In fact, it expressly refused to do so even when asked to and on the grounds that Italy is a civilized country. (That said, in the late 1930s Fascist Italy had, under pressure from the Nazis, introduced laws banning Jews from some jobs in the public sector. In other words they was some discrimination, but there's a big difference between that and murder). As an ally of Nazi Germany, the Italian government was in a much stronger position than an occupied country or one with a puppet régime. (Bulgaria, another voluntary or at least half-voluntary ally of Nazi Germany, initially handed over some Jews, then its government had a change of heart and refused to hand over any more).

In September 1943, some weeks after the official Italian government had surrendered to the Allies, Mussolini was kidnapped and made the nominal head of what was in effect a Nazi puppet régime. From that point on Italy was under Nazi occupation and Jews were deported, but as far as I know, with very little active collaboration from Italians.

I hope this clarifies that particular point.

[starrwriter]

Just a little factual point. Those references to "the Italians" and what "they" did or didn't do in WWII are very misleading. As long as Italy was a _voluntary_ ally of Germany (June 1940-July 1943) it did NOT hand over any Jews to the Nazis. In fact, it expressly refused to do so even when asked to and on the grounds that Italy is a civilized country. (That said, in the late 1930s Fascist Italy had, under pressure from the Nazis, introduced laws banning Jews from some jobs in the public sector. In other words they was some discrimination, but there's a big difference between that and murder).
I thought I had read something to that effect in some history book. Thanks for clarifying this point.

BTW, I'm sure your username has a respectable meaning to you, but in English it's baby-talk slang for feces. Just thought you would like to know.

[Weeping Willow]

Well what can i say...
As one who lives in Israel and had to see my dear grandfather from the day i was born to the day he died. :(..
walking with that horrible number engraved on his hand!
I couldn't even think of talking with him on that horibble times.
I can see how and why people think they should read this book, and that is ok..
What sadness me is that this book still makes people this days think what Hitler did was good.
Just my opinion....

[Virgil]

I support you Willow. I agree. Taken in the very best possible light that it could be taken, mein kampf is a work of propaganda, not literature. Taken for what it really is, it is the devil talking to you directly.

[Stanislaw]

It would seem to me Mein Kampf is one of those flame bait books. People bring it up to get a reaction, and in some way they feel they are being "bad"

About talking to the devil: it is worse, it is talking to a human... a son of Adam that has done this to his own.

Two Ironies I have observed about Hitler:
1. Through all the burning and destruction of usefull books, and books that have merrit, the most useless and evil book has been allowed to remain.
2. Hitler said he would create a thousand year rule, and he has, who will not know his name a thousand years from now, and who, more scarily, who will not remember him as someone who did something good for his country (a misconception that is starting to cement itself in the minds of youth today)

I am one of the first to speak out against cencorship, however somethings should be censored. There is no excusing, denying or accepting the Holocaust.
It is hard to convey my emotion in just words, it is onething to see pictures, but when you actually see the camps, and the people with the branding on their arm. It is impossible to think that people did this to people.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Ban Mein Kamf and burn every copy you can find and it will go underground. The neo-nazi skinheads will still get hold of copies. It's notoriety will lead to it being even more widely read as at present. It will become a "cult classic".

No, the best thing to do with a book like this, is to allow it to be published, and read, and studied, and to thus show it up for the trash that it really is. It is one of the few books in my life, on any subject, that I have started reading and abandonned: not due to it's content, not because I was shocked or horrified, not because I'd read enough to know the gist of it, but purely and simply because it was dull as ditchwater.

Brilliant orator Hitler may have been, but inspired author he most definitely wasn't. Unless he comes across one hell of a lot better in german than in translation.

[rachel]

Well I am Jewish and as soon as I get some time and the guts I am going to read the book once and for all and get it over with. As the author of a recent book said , the very truth that is didn't sell well and no other rulers of other countries by and large read it was the greatest of tragedies because he spelled out what he would do.
I will read it if I can as literature and see what sort of a mind that wrote something originally as unpopular as religious mags sold door to door was able to overcome the stable and brilliant toleratent minds of his own country. Perhaps if the book was read in school and not interpreted, just let each child have their own feelings such a book would not make it to the printers again. who knows. it has been many years since written and it seems to me that unlike other contentious works of old that somehow found a measure of popularity and respect down the road this one hasn't.

[kolob55]

As a student of Cold-War Era History, Mein Kampf was Hitler's position, and blueprint for the future. What should be remembered is this, it took millions of other people to bring His demented vision to the reality that it became. The participation came from the cowards in the west, and the willing in Germany and the surrounding countries.

[kolob55]

It should be noted that the Italian goverment did not support the Nazi position on the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem". Italian history and culture is rich in its inclusion of other cultures. One may look to the Spanish around the time of Columbus to find state sponsered extermination of the Jewish people that is similar to Mr. Hitler's.

[kolob55]

The writing style may be juvenile, and border on a never-ending tirade, but the intent is quite clear. Unless you are hopelessly devoted to contemporary history don't waste your time; you won't understand it, in its fullest.

[kolob55]

It's not possible to discuss "Mein Kampf" without reference to World Wars I and II and the Holocaust. I assumed only present-day politics was off-limits. If war in general is considered politics, how can we discuss Toystoy's "War and Peace" or Norman Mailer's "The Naked and the Dead" or any other book about past wars? We definitely need some clarification on this point.

The discussion of politics is central to understanding Mein Kampf and Hitler in general.

[kolob55]

I would suggest reading "On War", in it there is a statement from the author saying that war is an extension of politics. I am paraphrasing what He said but it's close enough to get the jist of it.

[kolob55]

I would suggest you read "The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich", you will have a better understanding of the whole picture, i.e. Hitler, WWII, America at the time, and more important, why it could happen again.

Holden

[SleepyWitch]

Mike, the reason I personally think it's so important to read things like "Mein Kampf" is because there's two sides to every story. What the United States saw was very different from what the Nazis saw. Frankly, I think too many people rely on history books and historians for all their information. While both are good sources of information, they are fragmented versions of the truth. History books and historians give you the "American" take on history, because both the historians and the textbook authors are American and are giving you their version of the events through what they have read. Very few books or historians go into why Hitler did what he did. Usually his actions are just said to be wrong, and that is that.

I think what we need to realize is that telling stories is fine, but we need to know why they occur. If it means reading "innapropriate" documents, then so be it. It's only innapropriate because it makes what happened during WWII explainable. Excusable? Definately not, but very much explainable nonetheless. Honestly, I like "Mein Kampf" and see no problem with it. Why do people feel the need to censor what others read? This book is not some sort of infection that will spread if more people read it. Not everyone who reads the book automatically becomes a Neo-Nazi, and to think such a thing assumes that we are robots incapable of any opinionated or logic thinking. Sorry for the rant. Any thoughts?

The Mind Dweller


err. and just when did you switch from studying the book to understand about Hitler to "I like 'Mein Kampf'" ???? maybe that was just a slip of your tongue, but if you honestly like it, that might prove that it is a dangerous book after all......

it's banned in Germany... basically I agree that it shouldn't be banned for the reasons XC said... but then, if it was legal, I think it should be studied in detail at schools over here.. it should be a compulsory part of the curriculum and should be studied critically... you see, the problem of the rank and file of Neo-Nazis over here is that most of them are incredibly stupid... they would never be able to see how badly written and illogical Mein Kampf is.... plus, there are lots of pupils who are not NeoNazis but might find it fascinating and wouldn't be able to analyze it critically on their own without help from teachers....

Themis there is this Turkish-German guy who does a performance of Mein Kamp in which he makes fun of the bizare language of the book... e.g. he says that Hitler wrote "..... and so on .-" and then he comments "..and so on fullstop hyphen? What is this supposed to mean, if readers are supposed to know what he's talking about anyway, what is he writing a book for?"... it's hilarious and points out the dangers of this book.... e.g. there's the following analogy "Just like a wolf and a goose will never be able to have [I]human[/B] relationships, the Jew and the Aryan will never ...." (and so on .- :) ) ... ---> wolf, goose, human???
this guy reads it all out in a Hitler voice and then tears it up.... but most Nazi guys are so stupid, they wouldn't even notice the flaws in Hitler's 'logic'....

[brighttears]

This book should stand as the complete and final version of Hitler's own story of his life, his political philosophy, and his thwarted plans for world domination. ~ Mein Kampf
I too am reading this book and see nothing wrong with it. Of course, it is unexcusable. This does not mean it should be censored, because some people need to face the reality that this can happen again.

[Virgil]

This does not mean it should be censored, because some people need to face the reality that this can happen again.
I don't support censorship, but this book is vile and it has come to represent pure evil. There are people who will pick this up and not find anything wrong. If you want people to face the reality that this can happen again (and I do), then what people should be reading are the survivor narratives (Weisell, Levi, etc.) that have come down to us. Reading Mein Kampf is to promote it to some off the wall group of knuckle heads.

[mono]

I read Mein Kampf years ago, and though I do not doubt the evil deeds of Adolf Hitler, I thought it quite a philosophical work. I cannot claim that agreed with Hitler on most subjects, but he proved himself as a rather deep thinker, well read, and well oriented to his own thoughts; unfortunately, he gained quite a bit of power and authority, to say the least, and abused many of his own thoughts, carrying them on to worse deeds.
I have no intention of playing the "devil's advocate," so to speak, but anyone writing such a work, I must admit, has some kind of superior thought - sadly, he only applied it to horribly unspecified events (respecting the 'no politics' rule, of course).

[cuppajoe_9]

I don't support censorship, but this book is vile and it has come to represent pure evil. There are people who will pick this up and not find anything wrong. If you want people to face the reality that this can happen again (and I do), then what people should be reading are the survivor narratives (Weisell, Levi, etc.) that have come down to us. Reading Mein Kampf is to promote it to some off the wall group of knuckle heads.Yes, but the off-the-wall knuckleheads will not disappear when the book does. Mein Kampf in an effect, not a cause. Censoring it will only make it more dangerous, because it cannot be refuted if it cannot be read.

[Virgil]

I didn't say sensor it. I think it should be ignored into obscurity. Recommending it as part of a reading list, even between friends, is counterproductive. Even having it's own thread here I think promotes it to some. Isn't that what the knuckle heads are after?

[cuppajoe_9]

No, the knuckleheads (boneheads would be slightly more accurate, for a very thin reason) want you to read it and agree with it. Getting people to read it is fairly easy, but getting people to agree is a different matter. WWII might have been prevented if the book was more widely read, as the British and French public probably would not have gone along with appeasement if it was widely known how completely bananas Adolf actually was (this point is highly debateable, and I'm not so sure about it myself).

[Virgil]

OK, you make a good point, although I'm not totally convince. The boneheads (you're right that's more accurate) aren't counting on most people joining, just some, little by little.

[cuppajoe_9]

In the meantime, we distribute some more liberal philosophy, which has the sizeable advantage of making sense.

[Woland]

Much of his inane rantings are based on now discredited notions that, unfortunately, had some scientific validity at the time such as phrenology and eugenics.

[mono]

Much of his inane rantings are based on now discredited notions that, unfortunately, had some scientific validity at the time such as phrenology and eugenics.
Not to play an 'advocate for the devil,' of course, I would think syphilis had something to do with his termed 'insanity;' in its tertiary, and last, stages (when untreated), it can fatally affect systemic organs, including the central nervous system, manifesting, in the worst cases, psychosis. A true shame someone with so much power would have this affliction, for some historians even attribute his severe case of syphilis with his obvious psychological problems.

[Woland]

I didnt mean to suggest Hitler was insane, that is not the case save perhaps in the last years of the war. His early career shows he knew exactly what he wanted and was figuring out a path to obtain the power he desired to enact his will on Germany (Nietchze's ubermensch? :brow: ). You may have mistaken inane in my post for a mispelling of insane, but inane, meaning foolish or nonsensical, is what I meant to say. Yes, it does seem that he had some kind of disease, syphilis would be surprising, but he did detoriate very quickly - from about 43 to his death. It doesnt seem he would have lived much longer even if his fortunes in the war had been different.

[Themis]

I didnt mean to suggest Hitler was insane, that is not the case save perhaps in the last years of the war. His early career shows he knew exactly what he wanted and was figuring out a path to obtain the power he desired to enact his will on Germany .

Hm. Does being insane interfere with knowing what one wants and being able to achieve it?

[mono]

Hm. Does being insane interfere with knowing what one wants and being able to achieve it?
Questionably, yes or no, perhaps depending on the person asking. 'Insane' seems a rather invasive word, rarely used these days unless intending an insult (and no worries, Woland, I never thought you meant to say 'insane' ;)). There seems multiple definitions of the word 'insane,' and the word's use appears very out-dated in the field of psychology.
Whether it interferes with 'knowing what one wants,' and such things, seems debatable; indeed, Adolf Hitler knew precisely what he wanted, and attained much of it, but one could certainly say the same of other termed 'insane' individuals (depending on who labels them, of course), such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, Nostradamus, various mass murderers, almost all committers of serious crimes, etc. In psychology, however, whether one deems them in a 'right mind,' so to speak, also seems highly debatable. "Why did they do what they did?" seems the question - out of personal choice, did auditory hallucinations tell them, did they have delusional thoughts that their life or treasured aspects of life depended on such actions?

[Stanislaw]

A tought about Hitler came to me while I was discussing the deads of vlad the Impaler with my sister:

Quite possibly, these types of people have existed throughout history, and only as society progresses (ie. the peasents aren't ignored as much) we begin to feel the true weight of these acts. What is so different between Adolf and Vlad? They were both totalitarian leaders...and both deranged inividuals.

[Woland]

When I used the term insane I drew from personal experience of how disconnected a person can become from the outside world. From my experience that kind of psychosis/schizophrenia usually interferes, in one way or another, with any logical steps to enacting a goal or series of goals in the wider world. A person becomes trapped in their own head. I agree this is an extreme break from reality and I dont think Hitler suffered from this kind of disease. I think it is possible that Hitler had a more subtle personality disorder (megalomania, delusions of granduer) that worsened when he became the God of his country. For that matter, does anyone know the consequences to the personality when one attains ulitmate power over a population?

Just as a note I think insane is used more as a legal term at least in the US