Did anyone propose that the German people are as a whole "mentally ill?" I must have missed it.
Did anyone propose that the German people are as a whole "mentally ill?" I must have missed it.
"...the germans were very mentally ill and ready for him...".
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Ahh I see. I did miss it. I want to say how nationalistic and antisemitic they were but the same could be said of many nations of the time.
Thucydides was primarily a historian and not the leader of what became the most powerful nation in the world. It is doubtful that his speeches would have had the same effect on millions of people in the same way that Hitler's did.Originally Posted by Darcy88
Here's British historian Ian Kershaw's view :
Hitler understood the indispensable role rhetoric played in his quest for power. While brooding in a minimum security cell in Landsberg in 1924 for leading a failed coup de’tat -- the “beer hall putsch” -- Hitler told a friend, “When
I resume work it will be necessary to pursue a new policy. Instead of working to achieve power through an armed coup, we shall have to hold our noses and enter the Reichstag against the Catholic and Marxist deputies. Sooner or later we
shall have a majority, and after that -- Germany!” He would gain power through the ballot box.
“Hitler was no tyrant imposed on Germany. Though he never received majority support in free elections [according to Jäckel no political party in the Wiemar Republic ever had] he was legally appointed to power and became, between 1933 and 1940, arguably the most popular head of state in the world. It has been suggested that at the peak of his popularity nine Germans in ten were ‘Hitler supporters,’ ‘Fuhrer Believers.
Among his early “fans” was Winston Churchill who, in 1936, called Hitler the “greatest German of the age. He has restored Germany’s honor.” A year later Churchill described Hitler’s achievements as “among the most remarkable
in the whole history of the world” and “I’ve always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us to our rightful position among nations.”
Hitler as Speech Writer:
Hitler once declared, “everything I have accomplished I owe to persuasion.” He knew rhetoric was the key to his success. According to Kershaw, “when it came to preparing his speeches, which he composed himself, he would
withdraw into his room and could work deep into the night several evenings running, occupying three secretaries taking dictation straight into the typewriters before carefully correcting the drafts.” Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister, notes, “Hitler spoke very proudly of the fact that he corrected his speeches three, four, five times.”
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Obviously no one is saying that *all* the German people were mad... just the ones that helped Hitler get into power (i.e., a majority, or a large minority...)
Isn't being anti-semitic a form of mental illness? Holding someone not to be human simply because of their race certainly sounds nuts to me!
P.S. Heidegger was nuts in this way, and others on StLuke's list had inclinations to this kind of madness (Karajan...) Then again ... who ever said artists had to be sane? Then again... don't philosopher have to be sane, by definition?
Last edited by mal4mac; 02-24-2012 at 08:08 AM.
[QUOTE=mal4mac;1118116
Isn't being anti-semitic a form of mental illness? Holding someone not to be human simply because of their race certainly sounds nuts to me!
[/QUOTE]
Well according to what you said damn near all the humans who ever lived were mentally Ill. Considering the prevalance on racism and genocide in history.
But there's a difference between being near-retarded, as cafolini called Hitler and implied about the whole of WWII era Germany, and Being insane, or various other forms of mental illness. One can be insane and intelligent (at least in certain ways/matters) at the same time. So what you will about Hitler, but he was nor a stupid man. Evil, insane, unstable, hateful? Of course. But dumb? No.
I don't think anyone called Hitler stupid. Because lets face it, if a stupid man can rise from a working class failed artist/soldier - and become one of the most powerfull men in europe - well all of us by contrast must be very very very very stupid.
As for the insane thing, yes, but he was no more insane than the majority of his contempories if you see what was going on in europe at the time. Sadly I think we can only call him the tragic product of his times.
Well he ended up dead in a bunker through his own madness & incompetency... that looks pretty dumb. Given that so many tyrants end badly, choosing to be a tyrant looks pretty dumb ... just look at Sadam, Gadafi, et. al., more recently.
If you study, and appreciate, the thoughts of philosophers like Socrates and Diogenes then just seeking power, in any context, can look like a pretty dumb choice. You might have a brutish kind of intelligence that helps you get to the top of the rubbish heap, but still be overall dumb.
Last edited by mal4mac; 02-24-2012 at 01:20 PM.
That still doesn't mean was a great rhetorician. Cicero was one of the leading men of a powerful state and his speeches make Hitler's look like drunken babble. Next to Caesar Hitler stacks up nearly as bad. Hitler seemed to have embodied some strain of passion that was present among the common German people of his time. That's what he was - the common man amplified. He wasn't possessed of an intellectually imposing mind. Even the mediocre Obama surpasses him in that respect. He accomplished historically major things, rose to the fore in Germany and then the world and shook civilization like a massive quake. But it was a broken and desperate Germany he took over, and aside from the early dazzling successes of the blitz-krieg, his tenure as leader in the end turned out to be a catastrophic failure.
That statement is just egregiously incorrect and absurd. Hitler had the communist and social democratic parties expelled. He became absolute tyrant. Before he outlawed rival parties he had armed brown shirts stationed outside their offices. Their leaders he sent to concentration camps long before war even broke out. That statement is like arguing that Caesar wasn't a tyrant, nor was Augustus.Hitler was no tyrant imposed on Germany.
Last edited by Darcy88; 02-24-2012 at 02:20 PM.
I did.
Only a very stupid and very weak man would seek that much power to begin with.
What does that have to do with the Reich? Some did but so by virtue of being there. Most were supressed. What is your purpose in associating them with the obvious German insanity.
What saved Germany from the Reich's insanity, the allies or these persons, the Nuremberg trials or anything else?
Would the assassination of Hitler have stopped the insanity? I don't think so. There were hundreds of others to take over and make it end up where it ended.
Without doubt. And there were many many others among the Nazi's that would have done it. Obviously Himler as an example.
[QUOTE=Darcy88;1118154]Whether we like Hitler's style of speaking or not, it is universally admitted among the major historians of the period that he was a great orator within the medium of the German language. As for his not having an intellectually imposing mind, that depends on what is meant by 'intellectually imposing' and you will find that Third Reich experts like Alan Bullock, Joachim Fest, William Schirer, Ian Kershaw etc. etc. would, in any case, take issue with you on Hitler's intellectual capabilities.That still doesn't mean was a great rhetorician. Cicero was one of the leading men of a powerful state and his speeches make Hitler's look like drunken babble. Next to Caesar Hitler stacks up nearly as bad. Hitler seemed to have embodied some strain of passion that was present among the common German people of his time. That's what he was - the common man amplified. He wasn't possessed of an intellectually imposing mind. Even the mediocre Obama surpasses him in that respect. He accomplished historically major things, rose to the fore in Germany and then the world and shook civilization like a massive quake. But it was a broken and desperate Germany he took over, and aside from the early dazzling successes of the blitz-krieg, his tenure as leader in the end turned out to be a catastrophic failure.
Hitler was able to dispense with the opposition parties because of the Enabling Act of 1933 that the Reichstag voted in favour of by a two thirds majority. It effectively gave Hitler the right to rule without recourse to the other parties that were then abolished. If Professor Kershaw, one of the foremost historians of the period, is prepared to say that Hitler wasn't a tyrant who was imposed on Germany, I think his expertise will stand comparison with your own.That statement is just egregiously incorrect and absurd. Hitler had the communist and social democratic parties expelled. He became absolute tyrant. Before he outlawed rival parties he had armed brown shirts stationed outside their offices. Their leaders he sent to concentration camps long before war even broke out. That statement is like arguing that Caesar wasn't a tyrant, nor was Augustus.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like politicians who find it necessary to wear military uniform most of the time, and I certainly wouldn't vote for them, but it's important to maintain objectivity when discussing any historical period and there has been a lot of nonsense talked about the Third Reich.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Associating racism with mental illness in this way just doesn't work.
I am currently reading The Prostrate State: South Carolina under Negro Rule (1872) by James S. Pike. It is one of the most racist pieces of literature I have ever read other than some Neo-Nazi stuff one of my cousins used to send me. But one must understand that the author, Pike, is just a man of his age. He was an abolitionist from Massachusetts from the 1840's. He worked on the Tribune under Horace Greeley. After the war, he went to South Carolina. (A carpetbagger and a journalist). He was disappointed at all the corruption of the Grant Administration and was one of the Northern Republicans who bolted in 1872. When you know this and realize that this book, while purporting to be history is really a political tract, anti-Grant and pro-Greeley, you get a different view of the book as "literature." His racism was the current "common sense" that Blacks generally just weren't ready for political responsibility.
Likewise, when you understand where Hitler was coming from and the circumstance under which Mein Kampf was written and that it was "required reading" for millions, then it is interesting. This in spite of the fact that the message and style are inherently boring. Hitler was mad, not because he was racist, but because he was obsessed with racism and with the loss of WWI and the injustices of the Treaty of Versaille. It is interesting because of the "accomplishments" of the author.
Posting Permissions
