'Mein Kampf' To Be Republished In Germany 462
Hugh Pickens writes "Jacob Heilbrunn reports in The Atlantic that Germany is taking a new step toward what is often called 'normalization' as the state of Bavaria has announced that in 2015 it will publish Hitler's Mein Kampf, banned in Germany since World War II. In announcing the publication of the book, Bavarian finance minister Markus Soeder says that he wants to contribute to the 'demystification' of it. In 2015, the Bavarian state's copyright to the book will expire and the idea is to publish a scholarly version that will help stem its appeal for commercial publishers. The book is not banned by law in Germany, but Bavaria has used ownership of the copyright to prevent publication of German editions since 1945. Copyright restrictions stop at the end of 2015, 70 years after Hitler's death. By publishing in 2015 before the expiry of the copyright, Bavaria hopes to make future German editions as 'commercially unattractive' as possible. 'We want to make clear what nonsense is in there,' says Soeder and to show 'what a worldwide catastrophe this dangerous body of thought led to.'"
The English version is good for this (Score:5, Interesting)
The current English edition is actually peppered with footnotes calling out every time Hitler lies or exaggerates. It's like a side by side refutation.
Re:They want to de-mystify it? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not so much that Germany has done a good job about that, but the US did an excellent job of reeducating Germans after the Second World War. They treated the general population fairly and helped them survive. But they also had a reeducation scheme in which they forced groups of ordinary people to look at piles of dead bodies found at concentration camps, etc.
The Soviet Union, in contrast, had a different scheme that did not work. Essentially it amounted to drawing as much profit from the country as possible and torturing random people. This is why nazism is very strong in the east of Germany even today, long after reunification.
Unfortunately, the US seems to have lost the knowledge of how to deal with a conquered nation. In Iraq, for example, they behaved essentially like the Soviet Union did in East Germany.
Re:Demystification (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess its easier to reconcile with their past of they paint Hitler to be a monster. Monsters are pure evil and can force us to do things that we wouldnt do otherwise. Humans on the other hand are weak creatures who cannot do anything without the willing help of other humans(the German people in this case)....
Re:Demystification (Score:0, Interesting)
The last two decades since the reunification of Germany have been about Germany's economic conquering of Europe through
(i) a massive sustained process of industrialisation;
(ii) weakening neighbouring economies by a Union which encourages them to reduce self-sufficiency (become "service" or "finance"-oriented economies, i.e. empty shells reliant on foreign imports) while taking on massive debt.
Hitler's stupid racial bullshit was his Achilles' heel - his consequential belief that he could militarily conquer "inferior" races was his downfall. Post-WW2 Germany has learnt from this, applying merely economic strategy. In the short term this is better - no millions of dead bodies - but in the long term it's much worse, as dominance will be sustained.
You can deny this or shout "Godwin!" as much as you want, but it it what has already happened. Germany has led Europe in the same way that winning powers post-WW1 once treated Germany.
You've got to admire it. Then do something about it.
finally (Score:5, Interesting)
If the book had been readily available, there would be fewer neo-nazis in Germany.
I've read it (my parents own a copy, from their grandparents, as Mein Kampf was regularily given as presents at weddings, etc.). It's interesting in parts and revolting in most. It's also pretty badly written. As an author, Hitler was much worse than as a speaker.
There was a comedian here in Germany, of turkish origin, who read from Mein Kampf for school classes and other audiences. He got attacked pretty badly, but in every discussion, he leaves his critics in the dust with his wit and intelligence. In one, he told a former MinisterprÃsident (our equivalent of american governors) that her anti-nazi initiatives had pretty much no effect whatsoever on the youth, because the young people distrust authoritarian stuff that's being forced down their throats. But his readings had a profound effect. Oh and also, the neo-nazis hated him for it, up to death threats.
You can not resolve history by hiding it, only by discussing it.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Let them read it (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH, there is no right to not be offended. Life is offensive. I agree that it's not a good thing to hurt Breivik's victims even more by making fun of it all but thinking of the big picture... will it dissuade other sociopaths from doing similar things if ridiculing them and their ideals becomes the new status quo?
Does preventing more deaths make adding pain to the already hurt acceptable? Especially when you cannot, ever, be sure that you really prevented deaths or how many?
I sure don't want to have to answer that question.
Re:Let them read it (Score:5, Interesting)
a website with straightforward rebuttals instead of just annotations in a printed copy.
Rebuttals are known to not work against believers. Why are you bringing up a proposal for which we have ample evidence of failure?
If rebuttals would work, there wouldn't be any christians left in the world, nor many climate-change deniers.
but it would give those who are on the fence
These people are always quoted, but I've yet to meet a single one. No matter if it's child porn or nazis, there is this straw man. Do you really think there is much of a fence to sit on? I think the boundary is much less defined than that, and that people aren't sitting there, wavering, undecided. I rather have an image of a grey zone that people pass through on a trajectory. Some faster, some slower, some straight and some not so straight, but very few tangentially. I don't think we really have so many people thinking "this neo-nazi thing sounds interesting, but I'm not certain, I need more information".
Re:The English version is good for this (Score:3, Interesting)
IT'S TERRIBLE! It's boring, repetitious, tedious, egowank
I came here to say the same thing. Banning publication is a service to anyone who, like me, might have the misguided belief that they'd learn something by reading it. Other than that Hitler was a semi-literate drooling moron with a god complex, I mean, which can be learned from other far less painful sources.
Re:Heil (Score:3, Interesting)
erste Antwort, keine Erstegepostungmittlestoff.
Oh to read "Mein Kampf" in the original Deutsch.
Although I do not agree with all his philosophies and methods, I recognize the brilliance of Corporal Schicklgruber in attaining Germanys highest post.
I wonder at his further being able to bend an unsuspecting country and then a continent to his will.
But, the advent of the Volkswagon is proof that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
His relationship with Henry Ford, noteworthy.
His love of children, extraordinary. http://adolfhitlerbestpictures.blogspot.com/2009/12/adolf-hitler-pictures-with-children.html [blogspot.com]
We all know Hitler hated Jews. Germany blamed Jews for the losses of WW1, as they cut the flow of money from their banks. It wasn't hard to demonize them, but probably should've been done from the perspective that they were Bankers, not Jews. That's like hating ICEEs because Muslims seem to own 7-11 corp.
They are right, it could happen anywhere and people should see the truth. I don't think that a bunch of annotations from zealous anti-Nazis will help any more than zealous anti-drug messages have worked in America. So we should just print , as is.
German approach (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the German approach to presenting the horrors of WWII. Last Christmas I visited the Dachau concentration camp outside of Munich. All the material presented there went extremely over the top to paint the Nazis as inhuman monsters that were far distanced from any sane person. But what this totally missed is that the horror of the Holocaust was that it was completely human. The vast majority of the Nazis were everyday people like you an me, and that's what makes it mindbogglingly terrible.
In contrast you have the Holocaust exhibit at the British Imperial War Museum. The whole first section is very clearly focused on the on the economic and political conditions that led to the rise of the Nazis. Through the propoganda and information presented in that exhibit you come to understand how otherwise normal people came to participate in, sanction, or at least turn a blind eye to, one of the worst attrocities in modern history. I believe that only by dissecting this information and understanding this "flaw" of human nature can we really prevent such terrible things from happening again. Mein Kampf should have been repuplished years ago for exactly this reason.
Re:The English version is good for this (Score:5, Interesting)
It's boring, repetitious,
Been there read that. Read it for a liberal arts survey holocaust senior year class in school... quite a while ago.
The last two words I'd use would be boring and repititious.
Hard to describe the plans and beliefs of the guy who pretty much ran WWII as boring. I guess if all you pay attention to is the Kardashians and fashion shoes, this wide reaching social geopolitical stuff could be a bit dull, but I found it extremely interesting.
The repetitious stuff, again, is the readers fault. I'm sitting there reading and thinking "this is a pretty shitty WWII textbook" and realizing it was written well before WWII. Its kind of like calling 20000 leagues under the sea by Jules Verne from 1870 boring, because everyone knows the history of cold war era submarines and I've seen better modern agitprop movies and books about nuclear subs..
Him being naughty and evil is not an excuse or justification or (good) rationalization for basically making stuff up to make his book look bad and by connection his actions. He makes himself look bad quite well all on his own, by his beliefs and actions without you making stuff up about his very interesting book.
An example of a slightly less inflamatory subject: I'm the opposite of a bible thumper (which has the weird political effect of making me an anti-republican... they kicked me out, I didn't wanna leave...). Objectively it has some pretty decent poetry in it. Aside from the poetry I think its completely full of it, mostly false WRT anything important, and generally has been a net negative on society. If you don't like that, search and replace with any other religious text until it matches your personal dislikes. That dislike of what believers have done and disagreement with their beliefs does not mean I should make stuff up about their book being "unpoetic" in an attempt to make them look bad. They make themselves look bad very well all by themselves.
Re:The English version is good for this (Score:5, Interesting)
Right wing: tending toward fascism [wikipedia.org]. Left wing: tending toward socialism [wikipedia.org]. Since both ideologies are dedicated to crushing personal freedom it is easy to confuse the two. It's *how* they want to crush your freedom that distinguishes them.
Re:The English version is good for this (Score:4, Interesting)
Left and right are unclear ways to describe people's political tendencies. You have to add in a second dimension [wikipedia.org], that of "use of the state" or libertarian versus authoritarian. Left and right describe "how things are", and authoritarian and libertarian describe "what you are going to do about it".
Left and right, according to one definition, says that the right believes in the various social structures, and that they are there for a reason. The unfortunate are that way for a good reason. The left would say the unfortunate are that way for not a good reason, and seek to change the social structures. Authoritarian people would use the power of the state to further their left or right goals, and libertarian people want to limit or destroy the power of the state.
Hitler was right wing, authoritarian. Use the power of the state to cleanse the social structures of people and institutions that were messing it up.
Re:The English version is good for this (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't agree with you that the goal of socialism is to crush personal freedom. In fact, I'd take the direct opposite stance.
Full-on socialist policies (which some refer to as a "nanny state" because the essentials of life are provided by the government) actually free the citizenry from having to worry about the very trials and tribulations that consume the time and energy of a capitalist society: survival.
Even fascism isn't so much about "crushing" personal freedom as it is about whipping the population into a fanatical frenzy of support for the state and it's purported mission.
Had you said that they try to manipulate people into giving up the ideals of capitalism, I'd have agreed. But I don't see capitalism as the be-all and end-all of society. Never have, and never will.
Primarily because I grew up in and live in a country that has had socialist leanings pretty much since the 1930's -- Canada. Having grown up in such an environment, I can see definite benefits to society from a government which generally considers the welfare of society as a whole to be more important than some ideology of freedom to rape, pillage, and rob your neighbours without restriction so long as it's profitable.
Re:Heil (Score:4, Interesting)
Christopher Columbus gets a national holiday in the U.S. because he was too stupid to find India. He didn't prove that the Earth was round, nor did he beat Leif Ericson and John Cabot to North America. We push aside the negativity of indigenous genocide so that we can celebrate "European Accomplishment" instead. Well then, I propose that we institute a Hitler Day. Think about it... Hitler pushed for the creation of Volkswagen and the Autobahn. His leadership of Germany led to jet propulsion, significant advances in rocket telemetry, and laid the foundation for genetic engineering. Why not celebrate his bona fide accomplishments on behalf of humanity rather than "dwelling" so persistently on the genocidal by-products of his policies?