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
Fleming: Thanks for proving my point before an international readership, sport. Your debating skills were gleaned from watching Beavis and Butthead.
Nick: Hold on a minute, are you saying you don’t argue with people in favor of the death penalty (proponents)? I thought you favored the death penalty
Olly: Your words reflect your fear of government for clearly enough for an international readership to see.
I am so L-ing-O-effing-L
Thanks to all for the discussion on Zinn,
I must say in all fairness that Steve has made the stronger argument to this point. He’s using independent sources and citations.
Paul, thanks for the article, although I don’t think it was sent to me. I’ll follow the links.
Nick: The term “moral relativist” doesn’t sound like you and more like something you heard in class. Moreover, saying that liberal historians consider him to be an embarrassment is an ad hominem argument. (Who are these liberal historians?)
As an Irishman, I am acutely of the bad PR Celts received from Julius Caesar, so referring to someone as a fringe historian rings like an endorsement of sorts.
Worst of all, this Stalinist revision of history aside, the Democrats are now embracing socialism without apology, having for years denied that very fact.
Paul, I just chuckled reading your comment about going out for fish on Friday. You are an honorary Cheesehead. And, it’s prime rib on Saturday night. The other 5 nights restaurants in Wisconsin struggle. Cheeseheads are cheapska…err, frugal, and tend to only dine out on weekends.
Paul, Zinn has said many times in lectures, and in the book and excerpt the Zinn-head cites, that WW2 was a corporate war. We wanted the markets Japan was conquering and knew an oil embargo would provoke them into attacking. Actually, Japan was going to attack the Philippines but decided on Pearl Harbor as more strategic. A Zinn-head puts up a post that proves my point and argues against himself! How utterly Zinn-like and reason #259 why I don’t argue w/ Zinn-heads. Of the aforementioned groups of rabid fans, I find Zinn-heads to be the biggest zealots.
I dug up some of my notes, Paul. Zinn, for decades, claimed Soviet spies Morton Sobel and Rosenberg were railroaded and innocent. Sobel later confessed to a reporter and Zinn just shrugged it off as old news.
Zinn is a moral relativist, believing there are no truths, just culturally held beliefs, He is a fringe historian and virtually all serious historians, including some very liberal ones, find him to be an embarrassment to their profession. But, he has a niche among people who think the US is evil incarnate. You see for Zinn, there are no truths, so he supplants facts that real historians use, w/ theory.
Earlier, I mentioned Zinn saying we provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. The truth is, Japan was conquering, raping and pillaging Asia. No sane person would argue that. Ask any Korean or Chinese woman alive during that time. I also did a paper on the Korean “Comfort Women,” which was an unconscionable and savage treatment of women by Japanese soldiers. So, we placed sanctions on Japan to alert them to our disgust. They said economic sanctions were an act of war and attacked Pearl Harbor. Zinn hates the US so he abides the Japanese blatant pretext and claims we provoked Japan.
There are many examples like this. With Zinn, the timing was perfect. He became prominent in the 60’s when hating America was the new national pastime. I have gained some wisdom over the years. I don’t argue w/ ditto-heads, Zinn-heads, Notre Dame fans[They think Jesus is on their side], death penalty proponents, and a few other rabid group of fans.
Nick writes, “Earlier, I mentioned Zinn saying we provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. The truth is, Japan was conquering, raping and pillaging Asia. No sane person would argue that.”
And I refuted it. Here, you’re trying to slime out of a false claim. Where’s the beef? Cite your source.
Best regards.
T . Hall,
Wow! That’s your citation? That’s it? You deduce fear because YOU assume fear. Great work Sherlock.
Speaking of tells:
“Point of fact, I do not think the Democratic Party is the party of saints, they deserve plenty of criticism.”
When I actually said: “That one political party is evil while the other are saints.”
Glad I made your night; you have made mine. 🙂
“…rabid historian”
Someone who isn’t aware the Zinn is known for being a raid socialist and mendacious historian can’t be reliable.
T. Hall,
As I told Annie, there is no point using dialectic with people steeped in rhetoric.
They can’t grok it.
Might as well debate a dog.
“…you do seem to know an awful lot about Nazi policy. I’m just saying. It does add a rather creepy aspect…”
You debate like an eight grade girl with baggy clothes, smudged eyeglasses and daddy issues.
Among adults, knowing ones enemy is de minimum of good strategy.
Thanks Schulte, I’m not a big Nazi fan, so I don’t have the spelling of the lineup card foremost in my consciousness.
Hall – I wrote my senior paper on German concentration camps.
Nick, you’re entirely wrong about the debate skills of Fleming. His retorts run along the lines of “I know you are, but what am I”. He resorts to ad hominem regularly, and his reasoning is faulty and his logic flawed; it usually rests on it is “because I say it is”.
And just because you agree with most of his positions does not add to his authority, either.
But all that aside, I want to ask you about Howard Zinn. I mean this sincerely, I’ve never read anything of his aside from an article or two. You did a paper on him. What was he inaccurate about, what did he get wrong? I would consider it magnanimous of you to tell me.
Same goes for you, Schulte.
I’m not saying I’m going to buy what you say, but I will keep your opinion in mind when and if I ever read his work.
Hall – I sent you an article on Zinn but if you google Howard Zinn + bad history you will get a lot of articles.
Karen: Obama merely inherited the Imperial Presidency from the Bush administration courtesy of Dick Cheney
You guys are falling right in line with Goebell’s strategy of repeating a lie often enough. Your attempts to claims the the Nazi operated as anything but a fascist dictatorship fits nicely with modern day attempts of Fox News to distance the Republican Party from scandal whenever it identifies some disgraced, scandalized Republican politician as a Democrat.
The Nazi’s may have offered a lot of palliative propaganda for the public as it was seeking to gain power, but experience shows that there was a very wide gulf between rhetoric and governance.
One example is from Fleming’s list of Nazi party planks; The abolition of all income not derived from labor or effort.
To begin with, this was directed at the Jewish financiers, who Hitler blaming for Germany’s economic woes. The issue of the interest Jewish bankers made on loans crops up quite often in the Nazi propaganda.
Once the financial aspects of the economy were stripped from Jewish control, the Nazi’s showed they could be very creative, or flexible, in their interpretation of what constituted labor.
Of course, it goes without saying that the term “effort” is a loophole of universal proportions.
Hall – I think the person you are talking about is Goebbels, Think of this as historical accuracy.
KCF is a a superb debater and an MD. A very intelligent, articulate, serious man. Disparaging him is a sign of insecurity and projection.
And Fleming: I must say, you do seem to know an awful lot about Nazi policy. I’m just saying. It does add a rather creepy aspect to your pejorative use of the term SJW.
Fleming: you were never on any debate team. Your participation on this site is proof of that.