Has anyone else read Mein Kampf?

[Darcy88]

If according to you my posts constitute "hysterical ranting," how I ask you would you characterize all this? -

"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!"

And here is one thing that perhaps distinguishes us from you [Austrians] as far as our programme is concerned, although it is very much in the spirit of things: our attitude to the Jewish problem.

For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.

"So, we are now going to have a total solution to the Jewish question. The programme is clear. It reads: total separation, total segregation! What does this mean? It does not only mean the total exclusion of the Jews from the German economic system... It means much more! No German can be expected to live under the same roof as Jews. The Jews must be chased out of our houses and our residential districts and made to live in rows or blocks of houses where they can keep to themselves and come into contact with Germans as little as possible. They must be clearly identified.... And when we compel the rich Jews to provide for the `poor' of their race, which will certainly be necessary, they will all sink together into a pit of criminality. As this happens, we will be faced with the harsh necessity of eradicating the Jewish underworld, just as we root out criminals from our own orderly state: with fire and sword. The result will be the certain and absolute end of Jewry in Germany; its complete annihilation!

- Adolf Hitler

[kiki1982]

Yes, and? The Third Reich should be understood, not condemned.

They have been condemning it for 60 years now, and still they don't see the same happening and unfolding in other places. Begs the question why it is remembered. That is why it is more interesting to look at it in a neutral light than to condemn it. Think of Russia now, think of Zimbabwe and of Venezuela with its mad dictator.Fortunately those 'presidents' are not planning on invading the rest and that's probably why we are not doing anything, but the people will have to pay for it in generations to come. That is where condeming brings you.

It is not condoning it, it is looking at it in the way people used to look at it. One does not cure or ease schizophrenia by condeming it, but by looking at it. Not by assessing how many people are killed. We don't condemn hunger do we or flu?

They say though that Mein Kampf is not interesting and rather boring. I wouldn't know, maybe I should try to read some excerpts, but I gather it is still forbidden where I live, so not for me then...

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Darcy88;1118730]

I'm not hysterically ranting. The man carried out the wholesale liquidation of 6 million innocent souls. He sent nearly 9 million of his own country men to their graves. The people supported him because he lied to them and manipulated them. He took propaganda to never before seen extremes. Some of his speeches are downright psychotic. If any man ever warranted categorical condemnation that man is he.

You are simply reiterating what historians of the period have already written, except that they tell the whole story and don't balk at telling the truth when certain unpalatable facts have to be included.

[Darcy88]

Yes, and? The Third Reich should be understood, not condemned.

They have been condemning it for 60 years now, and still they don't see the same happening and unfolding in other places. Begs the question why it is remembered. That is why it is more interesting to look at it in a neutral light than to condemn it. Think of Russia now, think of Zimbabwe and of Venezuela with its mad dictator.Fortunately those 'presidents' are not planning on invading the rest and that's probably why we are not doing anything, but the people will have to pay for it in generations to come. That is where condeming brings you.

It is not condoning it, it is looking at it in the way people used to look at it. One does not cure or ease schizophrenia by condeming it, but by looking at it. Not by assessing how many people are killed. We don't condemn hunger do we or flu?

They say though that Mein Kampf is not interesting and rather boring. I wouldn't know, maybe I should try to read some excerpts, but I gather it is still forbidden where I live, so not for me then...

Go back to 1945 and tell one of the millions of bereaved mothers of fallen wehrmacht soldiers that they must remain neutral, they must not condemn. Go back and walk alongside one of the millions of Jews being led into gas chambers and convince them they must remain neutral, they must not condemn.

Comparing Hugo Chavez to Adolf Hitler is a thought so absurdly wrong it hurts my brain.

[PeterL]

delete

[Darcy88]

[QUOTE=Emil Miller;1118737]

You are simply reiterating what historians of the period have already written, except that they tell the whole story and don't balk at telling the truth when certain unpalatable facts have to be included.

I've admitted that Hitler accomplished some good things for Germany. But he also carried out a campaign of genocide on a staggering scale. He also brought his country to calamitous crushing defeat. Some of his speeches are truly psychotic. In the final calculation these consideration outweigh the positives and outright condemnation is the only reasonable conclusion.

Even the Dalai Lama said somewhere that if he had access to a time-machine he'd go back and shoot Hitler dead. Enough said.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=PeterL;1118739]

Not even the worst of the worst is completely without redeeming characteristics. Hitler was loved by Eva, and some of his associates liked him well enough. But one should balance that against him going to war against most of Europe. That war resulted in maybe 20 million dead and the devastation of Europe. I won't claim that he was the biggest mass murderer of history; Mao and Stalin beat him. While he was inpower the world had pain, and the source of the pain was Hilter

.

Not only Eva Braun but also Unity Mitford the English Lord Redesdale's daughter, who committed suicide because Hitler spurned her. His niece Geli Raubel also comitted suicide, when she was living with Hitler, after an argument with him.

[Darcy88]

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.

[kiki1982]

Go back to 1945 and tell one of the millions of bereaved mothers of fallen wehrmacht soldiers that they must remain neutral, they must not condemn. Go back and walk alongside one of the millions of Jews being led into gas chambers and convince them they must remain neutral, they must not condemn.

Comparing Hugo Chavez to Adolf Hitler is a thought so absurdly wrong it hurts my brain.

Tell that to one of the 10,000s of bereaved mothers who march weekly (?) in Chile (?) or one of those mothers still living who lost her son in the South-Americas.

Or one of those people involved in the Russian forced labour camps AFTER WWII. They will be glad you learned something from your condemnation tout court.

That hurts my brain.

People are too afraid to understand something, lest they should be called Nazist or at least negationist. It is that that should be condemned.

[Darcy88]

Tell that to one of the 10,000s of bereaved mothers who march weekly (?) in Chile (?) or one of those mothers still living who lost her son in the South-Americas.

Or one of those people involved in the Russian forced labour camps AFTER WWII. They will be glad you learned something from your condemnation tout court.

That hurts my brain.

People are too afraid to understand something, lest they should be called Nazist or at least negationist. It is that that should be condemned.

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.

[MystyrMystyry]

Hitler was Austrian and initially saw Germany as a means to an end. To him Germans were inferior and would easily swallow his nonsense, but he also needed the Prussian military. It's sort of paralleled with Stalin (Georgian not Russian), and Napoleon (Corsican). The public actually liked them when the going was good, but by the time the going got bad it was too late. Stalin just became yet another psychpathic Tsar, and Napoleon decided to crown himself Emperor - they'd just gotten rid of the last of their crazy kings and now they were going to have to tolerate a new whackjob.

Fortunately he met his Waterloo soon after

[Darcy88]

In digging up dirt on Hitler I just now read a few passages of Mein Kampf. It doesn't seem as horribly written as some here have suggested. It is tedious though and rather littered with errors. There is no such thing as the "Aryan race." Laughable it is when he goes on at length about how the Jews never had a culture of their own, that they were culturally parasitic. The second pillar of western culture is the Judeo-Christian, that's the JUDEO-Christian. The ****ing bible is 60 percent old testament.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes, and? The Third Reich should be understood, not condemned.

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.

[Alexander III]

[QUOTE=Darcy88;1118730]

I'm not hysterically ranting. The man carried out the wholesale liquidation of 6 million innocent souls. He sent nearly 9 million of his own country men to their graves. The people supported him because he lied to them and manipulated them. He took propaganda to never before seen extremes. Some of his speeches are downright psychotic. If any man ever warranted categorical condemnation that man is he.

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.

[Darcy88]

[QUOTE=Alexander III;1118759]

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 aas 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.

That is a very interesting thought that has never before occurred to me, and I admit that as a German at that time I very well might have been thinking that. But I never called Hitler stupid. I call him evil and psychotic and repellently degenerate, but not stupid. As a politician he was a genius, as a tactician I'm not sure either way. His early blitzkrieg victories would have inflamed Alexander the Great with a sense of burning rivalry, but his decision to not finish off the British on the beach at Dunkirk is one of the greatest military blunders in all history, whatever his motivations.

We should keep in mind though that Nietzsche and some others who witnessed the earliest manifestations of the mind-set that would later become National Socialism had nothing but vitriolic contempt for its principles and its adherents.