Has anyone else read Mein Kampf?

[Emil Miller]

The absolute revulsion with which Hitler is almost universally regarded to this day is a damn good and necessary thing because it adds a buffer against a recurrence of the horror and destruction that he willfully wrought.

Emil, the fact that we've gone this far and you've yet to admit that Hitler was evil or sick or degenerate but instead keep harping on about relatively minor silver linings is not a good sign. I'm going on the assumption that you disapprove of the man overall but its just an assumption, you're offered nothing in the way of confirmation or reassurance.

It may not be a good sign but it shows that my interest in the subject is more thorough than your own. This thread was ostensibly about Mein Kampf but ,inevitably, it went off topic to the man himself. The reason being that despite all the obvious things we know he was responsible for, there are others that tend to get overlooked in the blanket condemnation. Hitler's childhood was traumatic and this, added to the defeat of Germany in WW1, may have been the reason for his behaviour but, either way, his arrival on the political scene is of massive importance in historical terms. My interest in German history certainly predates that of the Third Reich although its proximity to our times obviously gives people a chance to examine it more thoroughly than would otherwise be the case. In doing so, and without diminishing in any way the terrible things that occurred under his rule, it is obvious that everything about him should be considered and not just the mass murder and war. No matter how terrible a man he was and despite the propaganda build up, he remains one of the most interesting historical figures who will be studied and disputed for centuries to come.

Here's what George Orwell wrote about him during the WW11:

"I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler...The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him...It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. ...He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds...One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can't win, and yet that he somehow deserves to."
"He has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all 'progressive' thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security, and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to find a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won't do..... Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people, 'I offer you a good time,' Hitler has said to them, 'I offer you struggle, danger, and death,' and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet."

Couple this with the fulsome praise from Churchill during the 1930s that I have mentioned and the fact that Hitler was named Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year' in 1938, and it's plain to see that there was more to Hitler than one might expect.

[Darcy88]

It may not be a good sign but it shows that my interest in the subject is more thorough than your own. This thread was ostensibly about Mein Kampf but ,inevitably, it went off topic to the man himself. The reason being that despite all the obvious things we know he was responsible for, there are others that tend to get overlooked in the blanket condemnation. Hitler's childhood was traumatic and this, added to the defeat of Germany in WW1, may have been the reason for his behaviour but, either way, his arrival on the political scene is of massive importance in historical terms. My interest in German history certainly predates that of the Third Reich although its proximity to our times obviously gives people a chance to examine it more thoroughly than would otherwise be the case. In doing so, and without diminishing in any way the terrible things that occurred under his rule, it is obvious that everything about him should be considered and not just the mass murder and war. No matter how terrible a man he was and despite the propaganda build up, he remains one of the most interesting historical figures who will be studied and disputed for centuries to come.

Here's what George Orwell wrote about him during the WW11:

"I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler...The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him...It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. ...He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds...One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can't win, and yet that he somehow deserves to."
"He has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all 'progressive' thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security, and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to find a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won't do..... Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people, 'I offer you a good time,' Hitler has said to them, 'I offer you struggle, danger, and death,' and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet."

Couple this with the fulsome praise from Churchill during the 1930s that I have mentioned and the fact that Hitler was named Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year' in 1938, and it's plain to see that there was more to Hitler than one might expect.

Orwell wrote that in 1940. He did not know then the full scale of the holocaust. Hitler hadn't even invaded France or the low countries when that quote was written. His vision had yet to be implemented. Very misleading to include that quote here.

A man picks up a hitchhiker in the pouring rain. The hitchhiker has a long way to go, hours and hours. The hitchhiker is glad to be out of the cold and rain, in the comfort of the warm car, with pleasant music playing lowly on the stereo. The driver is very nice, stops at a diner and buys the hitchhiker a nice big dinner, talks and jokes. As they near the hitchhiker's destination the driver pulls into a dirt road, drags the hitchhiker out of the car, brutally sodomizes him before cutting his throat. Get it?

[Emil Miller]

Orwell wrote that in 1940. He did not know then the full scale of the holocaust. Hitler hadn't even invaded France or the low countries when that quote was written. His vision had yet to be implemented. Very misleading to include that quote here.

A man picks up a hitchhiker in the pouring rain. The hitchhiker has a long way to go, hours and hours. The hitchhiker is glad to be out of the cold and rain, in the comfort of the warm car, with pleasant music playing lowly on the stereo. The driver is very nice, stops at a diner and buys the hitchhiker a nice big dinner, talks and jokes. As they near the hitchhiker's destination the driver pulls into a dirt road, drags the hitchhiker out of the car, brutally sodomizes him before cutting his throat. Get it?

Orwell had fought against Franco's forces in the Spanish civil war so he certainly knew what fascism was about. So the article is not reliant on what later transpired.

You are simply transcribing what you have already said in a rather childish way that adds nothing to this discussion. So let me make it clear: I have said that I don't like politicians who find it necessary to wear military uniform and I wouldn't vote for them. I have said that Hitler was a tyrant. I have said that he was responsible for the things that you have mentioned. Nonetheless, Hitler is one of the most important figures in modern history, as is obvious by the numerous books that have been written and are still being written about him.
Nothing you or anybody else says can alter that fact.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm sure Orwell's opinion of Hitler changed when his atrocities came to light. And it was a bit misleading to not give the date of the Orwell quote. A lot happened in WW2 after 1940 (even before the holocaust was revealed) that likely made him question those thoughts.

[Darcy88]

Orwell had fought against Franco's forces in the Spanish civil war so he certainly knew what fascism was about. So the article is not reliant on what later transpired.

You are simply transcribing what you have already said in a rather childish way that adds nothing to this discussion. So let me make it clear: I have said that I don't like politicians who find it necessary to wear military uniform and I wouldn't vote for them. I have said that Hitler was a tyrant. I have said that he was responsible for the things that you have mentioned. Nonetheless, Hitler is one of the most important figures in modern history, as is obvious by the numerous books that have been written and are still being written about him.
Nothing you or anybody else says can alter that fact.

Then it sounds like we are finally in agreement. Except Franco never liquidated six million innocents or invaded most of continental Europe. Orwell's opinion was expressed prior to the happening of Hitler's most significant deeds.

[Darcy88]

I'm sure Orwell's opinion of Hitler changed when his atrocities came to light. And it was a bit misleading to not give the date of the Orwell quote. A lot happened in WW2 after 1940 (even before the holocaust was revealed) that likely made him question those thoughts.

Not only was the quote from 1940, it was from the March of that year, a couple of months before Hitler ended the "phony" war by unleashing his forces on France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

[stlukesguild]

All of what you say is true, but what you fail to aknowlege and that which Emill and kiki have been trying very hard to point out, is:

Where you as you are now, but instead a german in 1938 , what you would have most likley been saying is "Hitler is the best thing that has happened to germany since the unification in 1871".

Yes Hitler was psychotic, but you cannot refute his intelligence on the account that he was a genius of propaganda, not only did he easily dupe the ignorant working men, he also duped all the people like you, the clever boys and the clever men, were just as duped and manipulated as the ignorant.

So I see a big irony in calling hitler stupid, because his work wpuld have tricked you easily too, and that is the problem. We are not learning from history. By thinking of hitler as stupid, and not recognising his enorous intelligence in certain fields, we close a blind eye to the future. We believe another Hitler cant ever take power because im clever, we fail to realize that yes we are clever but men like Hitler are more clever than us, more clever than a very small minority of people, which most likley does not accpount for us. By remembering this and learning this from history we are more prepared to protect our future - by contiouning to think Hitler as stupid we just make ourselves pray to the next one who will have you cheering his name and not seeing beyond his illusion.

Your view is to simple, you try to ignore the problem instead of awknolaging it.

BINGO!!!

That is what any number of us have tried to say. Instead of painting Hitler as an ignorant bumpkin and an idiot and the German people as "mentally" and "spiritually ill" we need to learn from the experience. We need to recognize that those with poor... evil "evil" intentions are not inherently stupid. We need to recognize that there were reasons that the population of a modern educated Western nation... a nation/culture that had given the world Mozart and Bach and Goethe and Beckmann and Murnau and Rilke and Freud and Nietzsche... could support Hitler... and continue to follow him blindly until it was too late. We need to recognize that it CAN happen again... and it can happen here. We also need to recognize that while other dictators may not have had Hitler's level of "success" this is not due to a lack of trying.

[kiki1982]

I condemn Stalin too. And no cataclysm even remotely comparable to the holocaust has befallen South America since the conquistadors. The Columbian civil war was a war, not a mass extermination of million after million. Chavez is not a mass murderer by any stretch of the imagination, nor could the grossly reprobate Pinochet be credibly likened to Adolf Hitler.

If you can't condemn the men directly responsible for the holocaust you can't condemn anyone for anything. A racist dictator could come to power in the United States and carry out the mass extermination of millions of African Americans and according to your stance condemnation would be misguided. Ludicrous.

Blind condemnation, as we are discussing here no doubt, is nothing more than hysterical ranting. It does not contribute anything and is, frankly, on the level of Hitler's speeches: far too long, difficult and devoid of any logical thought to be ever considered anything beyond mesmerising.

All of those countriss I named were dictatorships which were not condemned at the time, despite the cries for help from civilians. They were even condoned by the vast majority. Hitler was a dictator (that is his most important accomplishment, leaving aside the obvious remainder of what he did wrong.

I am quite confident that the world would not be interested when the USA would decide to murder a certain class of people after a long and creeping process of totalitarianism. Just as no-one batted an eyelid when Tutsies and Hutus were killing each other in Africa and when the disaster was unfolding in Syria now.

Why? Because the epitomy of evil statemanship is condemned, but not understood, and of course every time we get 'surprised'. How is it possible.

Dictatorships and genocides work the same everywhere, yet it is because we only condemn them and then turn away that we get taken in time and time again. And yes, the Jews were 4 million of them and Pinochet's victims only maybe a few 100,000 (?) and how does that make a difference to anyone who has lost their brother, father, uncle, nephew, son or whatever? It is not a genocide, no, it is killing people you think who are dangerous. Jews were regarded to be dangerous...
It is because we do not recognise the signs that we leave people to get on with it. Things have never gone beyond the Nürnberg trials and that's it. It was a short-lived revenge from the victor.

They say (although I don't know whether that is true) that Hitler was so megalomaneous that he let the British escape so that he had a (better) chance of a peace treaty with Great-Britain. They say he had great respect for the British and in fact wished to have a great big empire. Killing them off in Dunkirk would not have made them very happy... Of course the British refused and so he bombed them in an attempt to force them to their knees, but they did not succumb unfortunately.

Anyone know that is true or not?

Why can't you do both? It would seem to me the best condemnation would come from a full understanding of whatever is being condemned.

Sorry, I should have said 'merely condemned'. Of course it is evil, but it should not be condemned and period. Which is what we have been doing for the last 60 years, with all the results we know.

And thank you, Alexander. That was a very handsome rephrasal.

[stlukesguild]

Then it sounds like we are finally in agreement. Except Franco never liquidated six million innocents or invaded most of continental Europe. Orwell's opinion was expressed prior to the happening of Hitler's most significant deeds.

Franco lacked the wherewithal to even think about implementing such. Even so, Franco ordered the bombing of Guernica by German bombers, leveling 75% of the city. During the Spanish Civil War his supporters executed some 50,000 with another 15,000 - 25,000 summarily executed immediately following Franco's victory... and some estimated 200,000 in the years after that. The numbers may be different... but the intention and the willingness to kill any and all who question, or oppose, or represent a threat was the same.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Sorry, I should have said 'merely condemned'. Of course it is evil, but it should not be condemned and period. Which is what we have been doing for the last 60 years, with all the results we know.

So, why shouldn't we condemn Hitler for causing the Holocaust, exactly? I'm just unclear, here. I understand that Hitler, nor the German people, were stupid because of what happen. But why should understanding preclude condemnation? That just seems silly.

[Alexander III]

So, why shouldn't we condemn Hitler for causing the Holocaust, exactly? I'm just unclear, here. I understand that Hitler, nor the German people, were stupid because of what happen. But why should understanding preclude condemnation? That just seems silly.

No we should condemn, but condemn with respect. By condemning hitler and making him ridicoulous we close our eyes, but by condeminging him with respect, by aproching him with respect, we learn and we try to understand and see how this supposed isolated incident in history, is not so very isolated in history but rather frequent. The men with the same passions of Hitler are far to common and popular and succesfull in history, to treat them as if they were "unique" or "stupid" and choosing to mark them off as "psychotic and mentaly unstanble" instead of the very bitter truth they they are very human, all too human in fact. Ecce homo.

[Emil Miller]

We need to recognize that it CAN happen again... and it can happen here.

Yes it can, and that is the reason why it's silly to treat Hitler as the guarantor of it not happening again.
I was disappointed in the film shown below for several reasons but not because of its central premise. Anyone who thinks that the US or any other major country is immune to the possibility of a dictatorship on the scale of that of Nazi Germany has learned nothing from the recent past.

http://youtu.be/yfA3TdLoOIk

[Darcy88]

Blind condemnation, as we are discussing here no doubt, is nothing more than hysterical ranting. It does not contribute anything and is, frankly, on the level of Hitler's speeches: far too long, difficult and devoid of any logical thought to be ever considered anything beyond mesmerising.

I am quite confident that the world would not be interested when the USA would decide to murder a certain class of people after a long and creeping process of totalitarianism. Just as no-one batted an eyelid when Tutsies and Hutus were killing each other in Africa and when the disaster was unfolding in Syria now.

Why? Because the epitomy of evil statemanship is condemned, but not understood, and of course every time we get 'surprised'. How is it possible.

I am not blindly condemning. I've heard many of Hitler's speeches. I've studied the man's acts. The informed conclusion I have come to is that he was an evil and by turns psychotic individual. Is that incorrect according to you?

Your logic is pitiful. You argue that Hitler shouldn't be condemned by referencing other dictators who you for some reason assume I do not condemn. Likening my morally and historically based posts to Hitler's mad war and genocide affirming speeches is insulting and ridiculous.

And I would hardly characterize Hitler as "magnanimous," but yes, he apparently hoped that by sparing the British army annihilation he might persuade England to come to terms. It was still a tactical blunder of significant consequence that for me calls into question his supposed military genius.

[MystyrMystyry]

A military opportunist you mean - easy conquests gave him access to new vantage points, Czechoslovakia for small arms and Holland's docks for the u-boats for example. Fighting a war on two fronts immediately puts him in the category of military idiot.

The thing with his particular brand of anti-semitism it was present in worker targeted newspapers from the previous century. Mein Kampf simply codified it, and his election to chancellor enabled him to legitimise it. As the war progressed he became increasingly depraved - first the concentration camps to gas chambers, demanding the gold fillings of his victims (and apparently tinning their meat and that of dead soldiers to send to the hungry front lines)

Actually Mein Kampf is really a collection of essays as semi-literate as those papers, but in published book form made him appear smart. Mostly it was luck - a little knowledge of military history, a little of basic politics, some of mass-psychology, a few fawning key figures and generals, and it all comes together at the right time, right place.

There were a dozen assassination attempts on him (perhaps more) that all failed by pure chance - and going back further he was gassed in WWI and could have easily been killed, and later someone allowed his release from prison. All causes and effects.

I saw a doco once - early on the American government commissioned a psychological assessment on him to see what they were dealing with, and it came back: 'Messianic complex, needs to be shown to be losing before the shell shatters and he destroys himself.'

[kiki1982]

So, why shouldn't we condemn Hitler for causing the Holocaust, exactly? I'm just unclear, here. I understand that Hitler, nor the German people, were stupid because of what happen. But why should understanding preclude condemnation? That just seems silly.

It has never gone beyond condemnation and popular society (apart from the historians) has not dealt with the embarrassment of having been taken in. About the Holocaust - again, the American military did not believe the reports, only when they really saw it and when it was way too late-, but also about all the rest. The world was hypnotised by this one man. As Emil said, 'man of the year' by Time (?), Chamberlain mistakenly believed he was going to reach a diplomatic agreement, Churchill praised him. If that was not enough the British were lied to by Stalin all the way through the war (so again, they did not learn from the master). I supose, though, that they did not want to upset the Russians lest they should leave the war and abandon them to be overrun.
That embarrassment has never been dealt with, not by the Germans (because they were the ones who got fooled first), but also not by the rest of the world.
That is where condemnation and only condemnation brings you.

I am not blindly condemning. I've heard many of Hitler's speeches. I've studied the man's acts. The informed conclusion I have come to is that he was an evil and by turns psychotic individual. Is that incorrect according to you?

Your logic is pitiful. You argue that Hitler shouldn't be condemned by referencing other dictators who you for some reason assume I do not condemn. Likening my morally and historically based posts to Hitler's mad war and genocide affirming speeches is insulting and ridiculous.

And I would hardly characterize Hitler as "magnanimous," but yes, he apparently hoped that by sparing the British army annihilation he might persuade England to come to terms. It was still a tactical blunder of significant consequence that for me calls into question his supposed military genius.

My logic is not pitiful. Look at what Emil said earlier.

Yes, letting the British escape was a blunder from your point of view, but if he was trying to make one big empire (which he was of course going to dominate), then surely it wasn't. It is your logic which is warped, not mine. I am trying to look at it in a different position than from where I am now. What we know happened after is irrelevant to the motivation for what happened then, because people did not know what was going to happen.

Hitler and the Third Reich were far more than 6 million dead + a lot of dead soldiers on both sides.
And, come to think of it, not all those 6 million came from Germany, you know. Was it Hungary that exterminated 80% of its Jewish population or Slowakia? I am part of a country which hid them all, or at least worked very slowly so the process did not go so well, so Belgium came off with a mere 40%, I think, but Eastern Europe was quite zealous and they're becoming zealous again.