There is an interesting controversy brewing between academics and Jewish groups in Germany as the deadline approaches for the end of the copyright over Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, the book that laid the foundation for the Nazi takeover and ultimately the genocidal crimes of World War II. For seven decades, the copyright has rested with with Bravarian officials who have prevented the publication of the work. Now, academics are arguing that the book should be reprinted due to its obvious historical significance. However, Jewish and other groups are demanding a continuation of the ban on reprints.
The 800-page book, “My Struggle,” will become part the public domain on January 1st.
But as “Mein Kampf” — whose title means “My Struggle” — falls into the public domain on January 1, differences have emerged over how it should be treated in future. The historians at the Institute of Contemporary History of Munich (IFZ) will produce an annotated version of the two-volume tome that will be offered in January for 59 euros ($65).
The historians view this as a compromise since the work will be heavily annotated. However, Charlotte Knobloch, President of the Jewish community in Munich and Upper Bavaria, objects that even an annotated version “contains the original text” which “should itself not be printed”. She insists that it will be “in the interest of right wing militants and Islamists to spread these ideas.”
I certainly understand the concern but I believe that work should be reprinted with or without annotations. It is a historically important work in understanding the crimes and ideology of the Nazis. Like most free speech advocates, I have always been critical on the effort of Germany to criminalize references or symbols of the Nazi period. These laws have been easily circumvented by developing closely related symbols and salutes for Neo-Nazis. More importantly, it remains a fundamental tenet of free speech that the solution to bad speech is good speech — not censorship. The scourge of white supremacy and Nazi values has continued despite these laws, which allow extremists to assume the claim of victims and accuse the West of hypocrisy (or fear of exposure to these ideas). There remains plenty of sources of this information, particularly given the Internet. Historians however believe that the work should be available in new additions to be studied in history, political science and other departments. Perhaps not too surprising given the free speech and academic interests, I favor reprinting the work and leaving the debate over its content to the market of free ideas and exchange.
What do you think?
Source: Yahoo
Note the class warfare, subordination of the individual to a supposedly benevolent dictator (that did not work out so well, did it?), fierce nationalism, conservative family values, and opposition to democracy.
And these changes happened very rapidly, over just a decade. No one could have predicted that idyllic Germany would descend so far into evil that it would produce lampshades made from Jewish human skin. No government lasts forever, and Germany was no exception, although its slide into ruin was a global tragedy.
That is why in other discussions on altering our Constitution, I have asked that we project out the implications 500 years. How will we be affected or prepared to meet unforeseeable challenges in the future if we erode the rights guaranteed us in our Constitution?
This might explain Hitler’s National Socialism:
http://www.britannica.com/event/National-Socialism
The unique hybridization of both socialism and fascism has been the source of a lot of debate and misunderstanding. But note the complete subordination of individual rights to the rights of the state, as well as fanatical loyalty to their dictator.
Karen – sounds communistic doesn’t it?
Ich motre ein double zimmer fur ein nach.
That is all I want!
Free speech should be protected, even when it’s hard, and books, even evil books, should not be banned.
The best remedy for bad speech is good speech. You cannot prevent anti-semitism by banning books, but rather by education and discussion.
“Never forget” also means not allowing any government to become a tyrant, because absolute power corrupts, absolutely. A fact for which I am very thankful that Professor Turley is currently challenging our government in court to try to reign in their excesses.
Pauie,
I’m sure he claims to have read as many specialists on Hitler that you have. I’ll stick to the European History expert, thanks all the same.
Oh, the government has solved all sorts of things, the most egregious of which is how to condition the electorate to believe everything they do is constitutional simply because they do it. That a liberal law professor is a traitor to his party because he believes in the rule of law and the separation of powers. That one political party is evil while the other are saints. That defending unalienable rights is unnecessary because it is inconceivable that any government would desire to infringe them. That a 10% approval rating means every incumbent deserves to be reelected. That a government willing and able to abuse the rights of people you disagree with won’t ever use that power against those you do. That blatant lies from the lips of politicians are somehow truths when observed by their base of supporters.
Yup, they’ve accomplished most everything the framer’s predicted they would and they could not have done any of it without our ignorant, dependent and apathetic electorate.
Nicely done!
I’ll take Robert Wilde, a European History expert’s understanding of Naziism over a high school level teacher’s take on the matter.
“It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:
“As with other fascist ideologies and movements it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)”
~Robert Wilde European History expert
Inga – Robert Wilde’s area of expertise is Medieval Europe, not Nazi Germany or Hitler. I have read many of the specialists on Hitler.
“The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.
The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.
Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself.
There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.
Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.”
~Robert Wilde European History expert.
Apologies again, That should have been Schulte, not Schultz. Whenever i get to thinking about Nazi’s, Hogan’s Heroes comes to mind
Of course the Nazi’s were fascists, how can someone with the surname, Schultz, not be aware of the history behind Krups, just to name one of many.
You think “Schindler’s List” is a work of fiction?
Hall – the Nazi’s were both fascists and socialists and nationalists.
Excuse me, that should , “didn’t square with your received version of events.
By factually challenged, you mean Zinn’s take on history didn’t square with you received version of events.
Hall – you don’t have to take my word for it.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/wineburg-historiography-zinn-122012.html
They were fascists
Annie: Yep. The thing Hitler understood really well was fear and how to use it to control masses.
Here in America, the fascist Corptocracy has been fairly successful in convincing a segment of society that government itself is the enemy and is to be feared. In that way, the people are deceived into thinking that government can’t solve anything, and they shouldn’t rely on it for improving conditions, such as regulating the economy or the effects of industrial waste. They turn to other measures, often violent, out of frustration, which in turn, increases the fear factor and justifies increasingly stronger responses from law enforcement agencies and the courts. You only have to look at some of the things that Olly has said about fearing the government to see this in operation.
Of course, an important strategy to the dumbing down of the masses, and again, you can the effects of that here among many of our fellow commenters.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
One of the first thing the Nazis did was break up the unions and arrest them as well as socialists. Sounds like something that could be on the Republican Party platform in years to come if they continue to veer any further to the right. And no Nazi’s were not socialists despite their full name. They were fascists, which is far right on the spectrum.
Inga – the National Socialists were both Nationalists and Socialists.
It’s important to study Mein Kampf if we expect to understand how the people are being controlled here in this country by those who have hijacked our government. It’s been the blueprint the conservative movement has used to roll back our freedoms and reverse economic gains of working people.
Fear has been the primary tool for controlling the people, whether fear of strangers, foreigners, minorities, but particularly of the government itself.
In order to carry out the plan, Fox News was established as the embodiment of Goebbels doctrine: ““If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Nick: Maybe Zinn was applying the Bedford Falls measure of wealth to Washington- remember the toast at the end of the movie It’s a Wonderful Life? “To George Bailey, the richest man in town.”
Steve, I will give you 2 right off the top of my head. Zinn claims as fact that we provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. He also proclaimed George Washington was the richest man in the US, BLATANTLY false. Washington had to borrow money to run for President. Moses Brown[Brown University founder] was just one of MANY people exponentially more wealthy than Zinn. Steve, I did a paper for a history class when I returned to college to get my high school history teaching license back in the late 90’s. I had a history professor who loved Zinn. I did a paper I called Zinn Spin. My in your face attitude toward this professor probably doesn’t surprise you. I analyzed much of the truthiness of Zinn. It was an ‘A’ paper and this professor grudgingly gave me a ‘B.’ I could pull it out, but let’s just say we disagree. Zinn was an ideologue and moral relativist. I get it, he speaks to you. He was eloquent. He had an agenda and it is yours as well.
Nick writes, “Steve, I will give you 2 right off the top of my head. Zinn claims as fact that we provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. He also proclaimed George Washington was the richest man in the US, BLATANTLY false. Washington had to borrow money to run for President. Moses Brown[Brown University founder] was just one of MANY people exponentially more wealthy than Zinn. Steve, I did a paper for a history class when I returned to college to get my high school history teaching license back in the late 90’s. I had a history professor who loved Zinn. I did a paper I called Zinn Spin. My in your face attitude toward this professor probably doesn’t surprise you. I analyzed much of the truthiness of Zinn. It was an ‘A’ paper and this professor grudgingly gave me a ‘B.’ I could pull it out, but let’s just say we disagree. Zinn was an ideologue and moral relativist. I get it, he speaks to you. He was eloquent. He had an agenda and it is yours as well.”
Washington’s wealth was from his inheritance, and real estate holdings in combination with his wife’s wealth, but he had little liquidity as a result. Further, he didn’t borrow money to run for President. He borrowed money to travel to his inauguration. (You’re a history major and teacher. Does this make you a liar by the failure to cite and then spin with truthiness for your agenda?).
As for whether he was the richest man in the colonies, when Washington accepted the appointment of Commander in Chief of the Army, “he knew what risk he was taking, the richest man in the colonies, a man who might have had from the British government the highest rank that could be given to a colonial.” (New York State Dept. of Public Instruction, 46th Annual Report of the State Superintendent for the School Year Ending July 31, 1899, Appendix Exhibit 4, p.1111 (1900).) This matter was printed 22 years before Howard Zinn was even born.
((https://books.google.com/books?id=dUo_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1111&lpg=PA1111&dq=Was%20Washington%20the%20richest%20man%20in%20the%20colonies?&source=bl&ots=lctR67Cozz&sig=k1FNczzjCpl2TtcpiNRvu9SmP6s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CHgQ6AEwEmoVChMI2sbS9enoyAIVBMk-Ch0NCQnC#v=onepage&q=Was%20Washington%20the%20richest%20man%20in%20the%20colonies%3F&f=false .)
With respect to whether the US provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor, you’ll need to provide a cite. Zinn certainly didn’t writ that in A People’s History. In fact, he wrote the opposite in A People’s History (Chapter 16) (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnpeopleswar.html), and in fact he cited his sources:
“As Bruce Russet says (No Clear and Present Danger): ‘Throughout the 1930s the United States government had done little to resist the Japanese advance on the Asian continent,’ But: ‘The Southwest Pacific area was of undeniable economic importance to the United States-at the time most of America’s tin and rubber came from there, as did substantial quantities of other raw materials.’
“Pearl Harbor was presented to the American public as a sudden, shocking, immoral act. Immoral it was, like any bombing-but not really sudden or shocking to the American government. Russett says: ‘Japan’s strike against the American naval base climaxed a long series of mutually antagonistic acts. In initiating economic sanctions against Japan the United States undertook actions that were widely recognized in Washington as carrying grave risks of war.’
“Putting aside the wild accusations against Roosevelt (that he knew about Pearl Harbor and didn’t tell, or that he deliberately provoked the Pearl Harbor raid—these are without evidence), it does seem clear that he did as James Polk had done before him in the Mexican war and Lyndon Johnson after him in the Vietnam war-he lied to the public for what he thought was a right cause. In September and October 1941, he misstated the facts in two incidents involving German submarines and American destroyers. A historian sympathetic to Roosevelt, Thomas A. Bailey, has written:
[‘]Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor. … He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient’s own good … because the masses are notoriously shortsighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats. .. .
One of the judges in the Tokyo War Crimes Trial after World War II, Radhabinod Pal, dissented from the general verdicts against Japanese officials and argued that the United States had clearly provoked the war with Japan and expected Japan to act. Richard Minear (Victors’ Justice) sums up Pal’s view of the embargoes on scrap iron and oil, that “these measures were a clear and potent threat to Japan’s very existence.” The records show that a White House conference two weeks before Pearl Harbor anticipated a war and discussed how it should be justified.[‘]
“A State Department memorandum on Japanese expansion, a year before Pearl Harbor, did not talk of the independence of China or the principle of self-determination. It said:
[‘]. . . our general diplomatic and strategic position would be considerably weakened-by our loss of Chinese, Indian and South Seas markets (and by our loss of much of the Japanese market for our goods, as Japan would become more and more self-sufficient) as well as by insurmountable restrictions upon our access to the rubber, tin, jute, and other vital materials of the Asian and Oceanic regions.[‘] . . .”
Let me know where Zinn stated we provoked Japan, and I’ll re-evaluate your heretofore unfounded initial criticism of Zinn and the grade of B you received for your college paper.
stevegroen – Japan had two choices. 1) get out of China and Mongolia 2) attack the United States along with other Western powers. They selected option 2. Roosevelt is the one who gave them the options.
Then, we were decoding the Japanese code faster than the Japanese were at the Washington embassy. To say that we were surprised there was a sneak attack is just a plain lie. It was thought they were going to attack a week before they did.
Nick writes, “stevegroen – Japan had two choices. 1) get out of China and Mongolia 2) attack the United States along with other Western powers. They selected option 2. Roosevelt is the one who gave them the options.
Then, we were decoding the Japanese code faster than the Japanese were at the Washington embassy. To say that we were surprised there was a sneak attack is just a plain lie. It was thought they were going to attack a week before they did.”
What does this have to do with your claim that Zinn said we provoked Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor when he didn’t and I proved it to you? There’s no intellectually honest excuse for that kind of reply when I affirmatively refuted what you claimed. Either cite where Zinn said or wrote what you claimed or get off the bucket.
Best regards.
stevegroen – ,blockquote. “stevegroen – Japan had two choices. 1) get out of China and Mongolia 2) attack the United States along with other Western powers. They selected option 2. Roosevelt is the one who gave them the options.
Then, we were decoding the Japanese code faster than the Japanese were at the Washington embassy. To say that we were surprised there was a sneak attack is just a plain lie. It was thought they were going to attack a week before they did.”
Steve, Nick did not write the above, I did, Paul C. Schulte.
Paul writes, “stevegroen – ,blockquote. ‘stevegroen – Japan had two choices. 1) get out of China and Mongolia 2) attack the United States along with other Western powers. They selected option 2. Roosevelt is the one who gave them the options. . . . Then, we were decoding the Japanese code faster than the Japanese were at the Washington embassy. To say that we were surprised there was a sneak attack is just a plain lie. It was thought they were going to attack a week before they did.'”
Sorry, Paul. My mistake. I’m not keep up well enough.
Nick writes, “Steve, I will give you 2 right off the top of my head. Zinn claims as fact that we provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. He also proclaimed George Washington was the richest man in the US, BLATANTLY false. Washington had to borrow money to run for President. Moses Brown[Brown University founder] was just one of MANY people exponentially more wealthy than Zinn. Steve, I did a paper for a history class when I returned to college to get my high school history teaching license back in the late 90’s. I had a history professor who loved Zinn. I did a paper I called Zinn Spin. My in your face attitude toward this professor probably doesn’t surprise you. I analyzed much of the truthiness of Zinn. It was an ‘A’ paper and this professor grudgingly gave me a ‘B.’ I could pull it out, but let’s just say we disagree. Zinn was an ideologue and moral relativist. I get it, he speaks to you. He was eloquent. He had an agenda and it is yours as well.”
Washington’s wealth was from his inheritance, and real estate holdings in combination with his wife’s wealth, but he had little liquidity as a result. Further, he didn’t borrow money to run for President. He borrowed money to travel to his inauguration. (You’re a history major and teacher. Does this make you a liar by the failure to cite and then spin with truthiness for your agenda?).
As for whether he was the richest man in the colonies, when Washington accepted the appointment of Commander in Chief of the Army, “he knew what risk he was taking, the richest man in the colonies, a man who might have had from the British government the highest rank that could be given to a colonial.” (New York State Dept. of Public Instruction, 46th Annual Report of the State Superintendent for the School Year Ending July 31, 1899, Appendix Exhibit 4, p.1111 (1900).) This matter was printed 22 years before Howard Zinn was even born.
With respect to whether the US provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor, you’ll need to provide a cite. Zinn certainly didn’t writ that in A People’s History. In fact, he wrote the opposite in A People’s History (Chapter 16) (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnpeopleswar.html), and in fact he cited his sources:
“As Bruce Russet says (No Clear and Present Danger): ‘Throughout the 1930s the United States government had done little to resist the Japanese advance on the Asian continent,’ But: ‘The Southwest Pacific area was of undeniable economic importance to the United States-at the time most of America’s tin and rubber came from there, as did substantial quantities of other raw materials.’
“Pearl Harbor was presented to the American public as a sudden, shocking, immoral act. Immoral it was, like any bombing-but not really sudden or shocking to the American government. Russett says: ‘Japan’s strike against the American naval base climaxed a long series of mutually antagonistic acts. In initiating economic sanctions against Japan the United States undertook actions that were widely recognized in Washington as carrying grave risks of war.’
“Putting aside the wild accusations against Roosevelt (that he knew about Pearl Harbor and didn’t tell, or that he deliberately provoked the Pearl Harbor raid—these are without evidence), it does seem clear that he did as James Polk had done before him in the Mexican war and Lyndon Johnson after him in the Vietnam war-he lied to the public for what he thought was a right cause. In September and October 1941, he misstated the facts in two incidents involving German submarines and American destroyers. A historian sympathetic to Roosevelt, Thomas A. Bailey, has written:
[‘]Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor. … He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient’s own good … because the masses are notoriously shortsighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats. .. .
One of the judges in the Tokyo War Crimes Trial after World War II, Radhabinod Pal, dissented from the general verdicts against Japanese officials and argued that the United States had clearly provoked the war with Japan and expected Japan to act. Richard Minear (Victors’ Justice) sums up Pal’s view of the embargoes on scrap iron and oil, that “these measures were a clear and potent threat to Japan’s very existence.” The records show that a White House conference two weeks before Pearl Harbor anticipated a war and discussed how it should be justified.[‘]
“A State Department memorandum on Japanese expansion, a year before Pearl Harbor, did not talk of the independence of China or the principle of self-determination. It said:
[‘]. . . our general diplomatic and strategic position would be considerably weakened-by our loss of Chinese, Indian and South Seas markets (and by our loss of much of the Japanese market for our goods, as Japan would become more and more self-sufficient) as well as by insurmountable restrictions upon our access to the rubber, tin, jute, and other vital materials of the Asian and Oceanic regions.[‘] . . .”
Let me know where Zinn stated we provoked Japan, and I’ll re-evaluate your heretofore unfounded initial criticism of Zinn and the grade of B you received for your college paper.