"Mein Kampf" - back in Germany!
 

The masterpiece of one of the most popular historical figures in this forum will be republished in Germany in 2016. The book will have 2000 pages. 780 pages insane crap full of contempt for humanity (20 years ago I read the first 100 pages, after that I had almost to puke) and more than 1300 pages with scientific comments on these 780 pages. The old copyright of the book ends in 2015.

This publication is remarkable because up to now "Mein Kampf", the original version, is totally forbidden in the Fahterland. Try to sell a copy (worth thousands of Euros!) on Ebay and you will get SEVERE calamities. I know that there is a very relaxed attitude towards "Mein Kampf" in the USA, which shows again the different attitude of our nations towards Third Reich memorials.

"Mein Kampf" would never be published in Germany without the huge scientific comment. There are still too many people over here (and everywhere in the world) who would take the verbal faeces of the Barking Monster for serious facts, for reasonable ideas.

Not memorials but the First Amendment. In America there is no law against publishing any book,
unless it is deemed to be obscene, which "standard" is reserved for pornography.

While I understand German sensitivity to Hitler's writings, it should be published, with or without editorial commentary. Germany has done far better than Japan in acknowledging the atrocities it committed in WWII and this process should continue.

Rob I totally agree with you. I never accepeted the Bevormundung (imposing?) by the German authorities, which ends now, I think it would have been useful if intellectuals in Germany could have made their own opinion by reading the book. The copy I started to read was from my former music teacher, his parents got it when they married - instead of the bible - as it was usual back then.

Get with the program. The Nazis, not Germany, committed those atrocities. :rolleyes:

Chris, you are a willing and thoughtful ambassador of Germany here. We applaud your country's stance as one of significant soul searching, and this to be a reasoned attempt to properly frame this newly published book.

Thanks!

Oh what nationality was the party then?

Germans followed their leader all the way to the outskirts of Moscow with no winter coats. Citizens do not do such things unless they believe in what they are doing.

The were soldiers and when a soldier says 'get stuffed' to his commander they usually get shot.

So, we all bought the Iraq pseudo-War, right? :rolleyes:

I understand your point, I merely disagree.

I would posit most Americans supported the invasion at the time.

Thank you so much for your encouragement, I need that sometimes. It is not easy for a German in a foreign Political forum to particpate in an appropriate manner due to the dark history of the 20th century. But as this topic shows, like other topics as well, I am ready for a critical reviewing of the difficult past of Germany.

Nice that you use the term "ambassador" because it is exactly the term that comes from time to time into my mind when I participate on Audiokarma. I posted 17300 times over there trying to be an ambassador of the modern open minded democratic Germany. (Okay - of course the main reason for my participation is entertainment...)

Well - and don't forget that I never speak a single word English, never, all my English just exists in a written form.

Ach du liebes Bichen!

I think that is German for Holy Cow!

I am sure if you can write it like that you can speak some...you should practive the next time you see an "ugly American" tourists with a fanny pack on lol;):D

By the way - my most important American English teacher is not CNN, it has been for 35 years almighty Godfather let us praise him FRANK ZAPPA!

The songbooks "Zonx" and "Corrected Copies", translated by Bukowski translater and Zappa friend Carl Weisser have always been very helpful.

Modern Germany is a wonder and, in part, an example of what an enlightened approach to post-conflict treatment of former adversaries can do. Would that* America had taken these lessons to heart.

Should you ever want to improve your spoken English, you could visit my old friend Mark in Lorch. He's an Ami service brat who seemed always to feel more German than American so, when he got to a certain point in his life, he moved back to Hesse.

John

*That's how to use, "would that", Zeke.

One of the most difficult questions still is the definition of the German citizen then. A lot of them were Nazis, no question about that. But a lot of Germans did just as much as was necessary in order to survive. My Grandfather and his brother, my Granduncle were in Stalingrad. My Grandfather was a physician and his brother a reverend. Grandpa "repaired" the warriors as far as he could and Granduncle buried the soldiers who died under Grandpas hands. Nazis?

Two absolutely lovely people, Grandpa worked as a doctor until 1978 and died aged 95. Granduncle became mentally sick soon after the end of the war as a result of what he exerienced in Stalingrad and died 1976 in a state of mental derangement.

I posted a ref to Leni Riefenstahl's films in the Ukraine thread, could somebody link the post.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I still have pleasant dreams of being back in Germany, another just last night in fact.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

A distinction without a difference when it comes to the Third Reich.

You could.

Find the post you want to link to and click on the post number in the upper right. That will open the post in a new window. Copy the url for the post and paste it into this thread.

John

Can't do it from my smartphone afaik. Post #1082, "Ukraine heats up".

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

That, sir, is absolutely false. You should know better. Even between 1933 and 1945 there was also another "Germany" than "Nazi Germany". Your comment disappoints me.

My earlier point was that modern-day Germany has done a very good job in coming to terms with the atrocities committed in its name during WWII (unlike Japan). Was it also incorrect to have said Japan in this context (as opposed to some convoluted construction like "the militant followers of Hideki Tojo")? Similarly, should any criticism of the American first use of the A-Bomb at Hiroshima be directed solely to members of the Army Air Corp or Roosevelt/Truman's Democratic Party? :confused:

As for there having been another Germany from 1933-1945, there was certainly political opposition in the early years. But, it faded quickly with the growth of the (militarizing) German economy and the ease of early battlefield victories. You would have been hard-pressed to find many skeptics among average Germans after his march into the (demilitarized) Rhineland in March 1936 or the overwhelming victory against France in May-June 1940. At the risk of offending you, I believe that a lot of modern-day Germans try to downplay the level of support Hitler had. It did indeed become overwhelming before it all came crashing down.

This tendency among nations to airbrush their pasts is not unique to Germany. Currently, there are a lot of Republicans who want to edit what is taught in American History in high school to emphasize only the positive while ignoring the negative.

My next door neighbours back in Quebec were from Germany, he was conscripted into the army but emigrated as soon as they could, damn good neigbours and nice people.

I also had a good friend Ruthild (May she rest in piece) she was a hostess at a standards conference in Nurnburg and a fellow philatelist. She died in a car crash on the autobahn.

Watching "Leni Riefenstahl, the immoderation in me" on youtube.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

And people tend to conform, once they realize the futility of opposition. The Nazis had efficiently systematically terrorized Germany.

Yes, that was the intention all along. Claus Von Staffenburg knew full well what he was up against, and the probable consequences. If only----.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Bluebook essay contest:

Compare and contrast the reaction of Egypt to Morisi's effort to become a dictator in 2012 with that of Germany in the 1930s after the passage of various Enabling Acts.

It's thought that, though von Stauffenberg disapproved of things like Hitler's treatment of the Jews and the general loss of religious freedom under Hitler, he was totally on board with the war aims of the Third Reich. He had been urged since the beginning of the war to join the German resistance movement but had... um... resisted. It really wasn't until it became obvious to him that Germany couldn't win the war that von Stauffenberg signed on.

In his autobiography, Hans Bernd Gisevius, one of the few survivors of the resistance, had this to say about von Stauffenberg:

"Stauffenberg wanted to retain all the totalitarian, militaristic and soci@listic elements of National Soci@lism (p. 504). What he had in mind was the salvation of Germany by military men who could break with corruption and maladministration, who would provide an orderly military government and would inspire the people to make one last great effort. Reduced to a formula, he wanted the nation to remain soldierly and become soci@listic (p. 503).

"Stauffenberg was motivated by the impulsive passions of the disillusioned military man whose eyes had been opened by the defeat of German arms (p. 510). Stauffenberg had shifted to the rebel side only after Stalingrad (p. 512). The difference between Stauffenberg, Helldorf and Schulenburg — all of them counts — was that Helldorf had come to the Nazi Movement as a primitive, I might almost say an unpolitical revolutionary. The other two had been attracted primarily by a political ideology. Therefore, it was possible for Helldorf to throw everything overboard at once: Hitler, the Party, the entire system. Stauffenberg, Schulenberg and their clique wanted to drop no more ballast than was absolutely necessary; then they would paint the ship of state a military gray and set it afloat again (p. 513–514)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_v...war_misgivings

John

Thnx John.
It's my impression that he came to understand that Germany was going down because of the regimes incompetence at the top and AH's insistence that if he goes down the Reich and Germany go down with him as per his delusion of being the living embodiment of the core spirit of the State itself.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

The Leni Riefenstahl interview film I'm watching is excellent, highly recommended if any interest.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

There was enough mass in Egypt who definitely did not want a religious
dictatorship. They had seen examples close to them and wanted no part of
it.

I believe the Germans to a great degree got taken in by Hitler's master play
on the fear of the Bolsheviks. By burning down the reichstag he got a free
hand to move against the commies, but used it to move against everyone
he did not like.

C-



missed my whole point..but good first paragraph. Such an essay would get you into graduate school but no Graduate Assistant stipend to get you out of the tuition costs;)

Starting "Triumph of the Will" now.
Doubt I could stomach Mein Kampf.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

An oversimplification.

It is always at some level grotesque to think one has summed-up millions of people in a sentence or two.

It takes unusual courage to act against the cultural tide of any particular time. It is easy to think other people should-have. Very very easy.

Sadly, as time goes on, it is starting to become more benign. Sort of the same way Napoleon is seen today...as quite not so bad. Of course for the real people Napoleon killed on his excursions through Europe it was bad.

Look at Harmon Kardon's post another way when he mentioned his relatives on the Eastern Front: why were they there to begin with? Germany wanted to make Eastern Europe and Russia their backyard and the Slavic peoples who lived their did not matter because they were sub-human. It was all written down in the 1920s by the leader in the book we are discussing.

Remember is was the German Army that did the fighting; not some para-military group created by the leader.

Hitler after the putsch developed a deep understanding of what was required
to get power. Noticed the efficient beheading of the SA.

Armies fight and die. All armies. Armies are like that.

The libertarians like to observe that a rational army would desert. That begs the question of why real armies don't....

The Iraqi army did not fight and die against ISIS when they came to Mosul.

OK. Delete 'all.' I can think of other counter-examples. Combat ability is to a good extent a cultural variable.

Still it's not unusual for armies to fight. Hitler did not have to change anything about the German Army to create a force willing to fight hard. It was there for him to use.