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
I’m hardly a “Nazi expert” Spinelli, but I do know how to research and post citations to back up my assertions, unlike you. And if you think that saying my father was a Nazi, which he wasn’t, is admirable, that speaks to your character in not a very positive way. You’ve once again shown your true colors here.
Annie
1, October 29, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Perhaps you need a primer on Socialism.
Apparently not since that’s where my pasted information came from. Note how the definition at your own link refutes your comment here:
Annie
1, October 29, 2015 at 3:47 pm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
The politics of Nazism
But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production.
You’d make fewer mistakes if you didn’t start at the conclusion and work backward.
Olly sed, “Oh, stop it Karen. Clearly your ‘fear’ of government is irrational. ” (While attempting to pass it off as sarcasm)
You know what they call this in poker? A tell.
You were clearly stung by having your own statements declaring that fear the government (and therefore need to possess firearms) thrown in your face as proof when you tried to deny making any such statements.
You just made my evening, pal
KCF, Our more recent socialist, LBJ, threw “nigger” around more than Richard Pryor or Django Unchained.
T. Hall, you and government should get a room.
randyjet showed our “Nazi expert” just how LITTLE she knows on the subject a few months back. It was a classic beat down and I actually felt a bit sorry for the woman.
For the Jackwagons,
In fact, the government has solved a great many problems that have surfaced throughout our nation’s history. It devised programs that virtually eliminated the boom bust cycle that plagued the economy; it prohibited monopolies from steam rolling our economy; it resolved the problems in agriculture that penalized farmers for their success, and helped them become more successful as well as efficient; it ensures that the medicine and food we buy are safe from harmful ingredients and produced under sanitary conditions; it maintains an array of commonly held lands in as natural a condition as possible. The government has also stepped up to the plate at various times and demanded that industrial polluters reduce the amount of harmful contaminants that result from their activities. It’s also ensuring a free and open internet. The list is endless.
Until recent years, the government also ensured one of the best educational systems in the world, but that has come under attack from the right. People proclaiming to understand the Constitution, while at the same time demonstrating a thorough misunderstanding of it, is a perfect example of how our educational system is failing. It’s these people like George Zimmerman and Olly who believe it’s their duty to uphold the law whenever they determine it’s being violated that result from this type of assault on education
It’s interesting that Olly would claim to know that the Prof. is a liberal or that liberals themselves do not support the separation of powers. The fact that Olly would assume liberals support Obama’s attempt to circumvent Congress’s power of the purse stems from the fact that he is not a free thinker, but is instead under the spell of charlatans masquerading as patriotic philosophers.
Point of fact, I do not think the Democratic Party is the party of saints, they deserve plenty of criticism. Such talk would be heresy among conservatives, where it’s only safe to criticize Bush until after one the Koch Bros has criticized the former president. But I am a free thinker. You, Olly, are the fodder upon which dictatorships feed.
Rick,
Perhaps you need a primer on Socialism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Inga – when you cite Wikipedia you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong.
“I could go on and on”
Of that I have no doubt.
The arc of your posts is long, but it bends towards mendacity.
I don’t understand the need to publish Mein Kampf in German again. Almost every old house in Germany has a copy hidden in it somewhere. The Nazis gave it to newly married couples as a wedding gift. After the war it was usually hidden in the attic. Now when Gramma dies and the family cleans out the house to sell or renovate they often find the hidden Mein Kampf.
Annie
1, October 29, 2015 at 5:32 pm
I could go on and on, but I think those who have the capacity to reason will see the history clearly shows that Nazism was not socialism.
Why would showing Hitler is anti-marxism demonstrate he is not socialist? This can only make sense if Socialism is Marxism.
Whoops.
I could go on and on, but I think those who have the capacity to reason will see the history clearly shows that Nazism was not socialism.
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/09/hitlers-strident-anti-marxism-3213786.html
“Hitler’s Fight against Soviet Marxism
Soviet communism was threatening Germany and Hitler was able to unify conservative and Christian (Catholic and Protestant) Germans under the banner of total fight against Soviet Marxism. Hitler’s condemnation of Marxism was explicit. He said,
“Ugly face of Marxism.
The destructive work of Marxism, its poisoning propaganda, dupes people.
Marxism should be destroyed
Democracy, as practiced in Western Europe today, is the forerunner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread.
I expressed for the first time the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation is the question of the destruction of Marxism.
A pestilence, such as Marxism.
Marxism will march with democracy until, by roundabout means, it succeeds in winning for its criminal aims the support of the sane national spiritual world which it is determined to eradicate.
the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated. I considered the disastrous policy of the Triple Alliance as one of the consequences resulting from the disintegrating effects of the Marxist teaching; for the alarming feature was that this teaching was invisibly corrupting the foundations of a healthy political and economic outlook… Sometimes they tried to cure the disease by doctoring the symptoms, which were taken as the cause. But since nobody recognized, or wanted to recognize, the real cause of the disease this way of combating Marxism was no more effective than the application of some quacks ointment.”
These astoundingly anti-Marxist ideas, espoused by Adolf Hitler in his autobiography “Mein Kampf” (published in 1926), would conquer any modern anti-Marxist audience.”
Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them.
The Bolsheviks eradicated the Mensheviks also. Not because they disagreed philosophically but because they didn’t support the Bolsheviks. Hitler didn’t hate Socialism. He hated any socialism, or any other style of government, that didn’t empower him.
Annie
1, October 29, 2015 at 5:00 pm
Trump is the epitome of a crony capitalist, so why do so many conservatives adore him?
He doesn’t support crony capitalism to nearly the level Barack Obama does so I expect that’s part of it.
From wiki:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production[1][2][3][4][5] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[6] “Social ownership” may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, common ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[7]
___
So as usual Annie’s efforts are revealed as inaccurate propaganda attempting to define socialism so as to [erroneously] exclude Nazis.
“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. 173). 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’.”
http://www.mattbrundage.com/publications/hitler-and-democracy/
“Hitler found no appeal in Western Democracy.
“One works best when alone.” This adage, commonly attributed to Hitler, perfectly sums up his views of democracy and parliamentary-style government. He believed that individuals operating in a democracy are not brought to their fullest potential due to the ultimatums and compromises (both in principle and practice) that commonly occur:
“democracy will in practice lead to the destruction of a people’s true values. And this also serves to explain how it is that people with a great past from the time when they surrender themselves to the unlimited, democratic rule of the masses slowly lose their former position; for the outstanding achievements of individuals…are now rendered practically ineffective through the oppression of mere numbers.”(Rauschning 785)
Hitler did succeed in destroying democracy in Germany; in 1933 he was actually elected democratically. But once he was given the power to rule by decree and suppressed all opposition, his government was no longer democratic. In Mein Kampf, Hitler states his intent for the Nazi Party: “The NSDAP [Nazi] Party must not serve the masses, but rather dominate them.” (260; [edition is 1942 unless otherwise noted]) Hitler likewise stressed that the leader of the ruling party should dominate the nation: “The Furher is the supreme judge of the nation; there is no position in the area of constitutional law in the Third Reich independent of this elemental will of the Furher.” (Noakes and Pridham)
Hitler had a deep hatred of the Social Democratic party, which he believed “fostered class conflicts at the expense of national unity.” (Bullock 42) In Mein Kampf, he outlines his distaste of the Social Democratic movement, being turned off by their hostility towards the maintenance of Germanism in Austria (31) and their opposition to social demands by the working class. (35-36) The Social Democratic Party remained antagonistic and disparaging to Hitler; he believed that “…the working men were the victims of a deliberate system for corrupting and poisoning the popular mind, organized by the Social Democratic Party’s leaders, who cynically exploited the distress of the masses” for their political gains. (Bullock 38) Hitler was also critical of the Social Democrats for their dependence on internationalization and foreign trade. With this in mind, it is no wonder that Hitler believed that Jews were the leaders of Social Democracy and therefore to be hated. (Hitler, Mein Kampf 43)”
“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?”
_____________________________________________________
I agree.
Good luck.
I favor logical fallacies when my opponent can’t muster a rational thought.
No, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, Goldman Sachs, all Democrats, are the epitome of crony capitalism.
1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double down.
3. SJWs always project.