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 debate, discuss, and argue ALL THE TIME! Daily, here. I simply don’t debate Zinn-heads and the aforementioned other zealots.
Debate is an art form. It takes persistence, hard work, brains, curiosity and patience. There are people on debate forums that want to take the easy way out, give an opinion and expect others to simply take them as face value. It doesn’t work that way, not unless you care nothing for credibility. If you want to prove your point, you’re going to have to do your homework and learn to uses sources to cite. Opinion is only half of the argument and if you go don’t fully engage in the debate process you stumble through it half cocked. That’s no way to debate, son.
What Sampowell wrote!
T.Hall writes, “For my own curiosity, I wanted ask what your response to is to Zinn’s assertion that ‘Objectivity is impossible (for the historian), and even if it were, it is undesirable.’ I’m no historian, but I think there’s an obligation on the part of a researcher to examine the source material and follow it’s logical conclusions. . . . Does it bother you that he examines history with an objective in mind?”
That’s a great question, and I’m really unprepared to answer it. I’m not a historian either, but I’ve learned that learning per se is as much about filtering as it is about assimilating alleged facts.
I digress for a moment, but I think it’s relevant. When I became a lawyer, I asked one of my mentors if he could give me a single piece of advice to take with me on my journey what would it be. He told me this: “do not lose the trust of opposing counsel.” It’s the single best piece of advice I’ve ever received in my lifetime, and I attempt to apply it not just at work but in all aspects of communication (although admittedly sometimes it doesn’t work out that way).
It’s not unlike NBA basketball Hall of Famer Bill Russell’s advice not to anger the opposing player, because it will give him additional incentive to beat you where there was none before. I’ve used that advice to settle many cases that would have dragged on for years were I the stereotypical pugnacious lawyer with a desire more to stimulate ego than help my client.
So, when someone makes a bold accusation regarding Zinn, whom I’ve always admired for his egalitarian bent, it provides that additional incentive of which Russell spoke. I think we’re all like that. And, above all, I want to know the truth or get as close to it as I can from the allegations.
Getting back to “Objectivity is impossible (for the historian), and even if it were, it is undesirable,” my impression is that historical objective impossibility flows from the quality of the evidence, which in turn is subject to the credibility of those alleging first-hand knowledge. It’s an absolute minefield for the peering historian decades if not centuries later. If I had to guess, that’s what Zinn was speaking to, and I’d certainly agree. Without first-hand knowledge, how can a historian not use his own personal experiences, intuition, and biases to draw conclusions?
As for the undesirability of historical objectivity, this one’s a bit easier as I’ve heard Zinn (on a video of one of this lectures – I was unfortunately never able to meet him or see him in person) say that he was disappointed as a student by the dryness of his history classes. The instructor would give the student facts and expect the student to make heads or tails out of them. Zinn wanted to know what the instructor thought of the facts being taught, to get his or her perspective, perhaps to see whether the instructor’s view of the alleged facts mirror his own. And, frankly, after suffering the Socratic (hide-the-ball) Method ubiquitously-taught in ABA-approved law schools, which I think is a poor method of comprehensive learning, I can’t say that I disagree with Zinn.
So, to answer your question in a different way, it does not bother me that Zinn imparted subjectivity to supported facts to draw what he considered logical conclusions – he was entitled. He taught his students what he thought of those facts.
Best regards.
stevegroen – no one cares if a historian uses real facts. However, Zinn made up his own facts to suit his purpose. Now, I have only read his People’s History, so I cannot speak to his other work, but I can tell you that his facts did not mesh with other historians in specific fields.
Herr Schulte,
America Firsters, such as Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford et al., were keeping America out of war – and in the Preambular mandate to limit military action and only “…provide for the Common Defence.”
Roosevelt’s Lincolnesque ego, zeal and despotism turned a recession into a depression and war. Europeans destroyed Europe in 1917. It’s taken almost a century to correct that collectivist/communist idiocy, which, incidentally, caused as much or more genocide than the fascists.
The recession of 1929 would have ended much earlier had Roosevelt understood that he was a man, not a deity. American free enterprise was/is irrepressible when left alone. The Empire State Building was built in 1933 and General Motors opened a plant near L.A. in 1936, as examples of the ambition of people who are free to “pursue happiness.”
Phases of the business cycle are temporary in an environment of free enterprise. Markets will never self-destruct. Human intervention in markets is what causes destruction.
Napoleon and Hitler failed like W. in nation/empire building. Expansion “regresses to the mean” and becomes contraction. Then the pendulum swings the other way. Europe would have self-resolved. The Constitution did not mandate world policeman status for America.
Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito et al. were all misguided egos that acted erroneously.
They all should have implemented and adhered to the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Ooops. Sorry.
I had thought we readers had been admonished to pay attention to what has been said lest we wind up ignored and outcast.
Ever known a teacher who HATES questions?
I do.
The old guard are all crawling out from under rocks, changing their names, but still nasty and ignorant as ever. Sometimes I think they’re all just one, dumb, fat lady in Tennessee, eating bon bons and shooing away several of her 57 cats away from her computer while her inbred son watches reruns of McGyver as they all wait for their SS Disability check. The fascination w/ me is more than a little disturbing. Hell, I give less of a shit about myself than they do. Get a life!! Or tune into a reality TV show.
Debate is easy if, when losing an argument, you dismiss your opponent and bravely state you will never engage with the likes of him again. “His ignorance is only exceeded by my contempt”.
Also, don’t historians routinely cite their sources? Hard to find a historian who refuses to cite sources.
Also, WHO keeps a college paper that was done 30 years ago? Or any college paper if you are over 55? Well, maybe if it was published…
Here’s an odd CV……history teacher (for one year). Previous employment: prison guard at noted federal prison full of the ‘worst of the worst’.
Schulte: I get the bias angle. Yes, it makes me uncomfortable. However, Steve is,without a doubt in my mind, a very strong-sense reasoner, so for that reason, I’d like to drill down a bit into this.
Because Nick had studied Zinn closely enough to do a paper, I was hoping he had some specific instances of grossly misleading inaccuracies. He fell short in his argument about whether Zinn claimed we provoked Japan. Steve had the goods and he won the day. Well done.
If you or Nick is able to bring evidence indicting Zinn as an historian, I’ve an open mind on it. Yes, I’ll look into it on my own, but if you reasons, back ’em up. Otherwise, they’re opinions
T.Hall writes, “Because Nick had studied Zinn closely enough to do a paper, I was hoping he had some specific instances of grossly misleading inaccuracies. . . . If you or Nick is able to bring evidence indicting Zinn as an historian, I’ve an open mind on it. Yes, I’ll look into it on my own, but if you reasons, back ’em up. Otherwise, they’re opinions.”
I’m open to it, too. I can admit when I’m wrong and where Zinn may be wrong.
Schulte: Everything I’m finding criticizing Zinn is from decidedly conservative sources. Anything from a non-partisan critic?
Hall – I don’t follow the critics of Zinn and I don’t follow Zinn, so Google is the best I can suggest.
Steve: So far, you have made the stronger argument regarding Zinn, the historian. Obviously, making a coherent argument is a little beyond Nick at this point. In his defense, he is old.
For my own curiosity, I wanted ask what your response to is to Zinn’s assertion that “Objectivity is impossible (for the historian), and even if it were, it is undesirable.” I’m no historian, but I think there’s an obligation on the part of a researcher to examine the source material and follow it’s logical conclusions.
Does it bother you that he examines history with an objective in mind?
Hall – think of yourself as a defendant in a criminal trial. The prosecutor has decided in advance that you are guilty and will only look at information that shows your guilt. The prosecutor refuses to share and exculpatory evidence with your defense attorney. Howard Zinn is the prosecutor. History is the defendant.
Roosevelt manipulated the Japan problem into a rationale for America’s entry into WWII as allies of the communists.
Roosevelt gave thanks to God, the opiate of the masses, for Pearl Harbor.
Let’s get this party started – FDR.
Finally.
forgotwhoiam – FDR gave thanks to whomever that the Germans declared war on us. He had been trying his best to get them to attack us as we tracked their subs and reported their locations to the British. We were harassing their warships in the Atlantic. But we could not get them to attack us.
LOL! I WORK for a living. Et vous?
Its hard backing up one’s assertions, it’s not for the lazy or lazy minded.
Zinn-heads don’t read well. That’s part of being a Zinn-head and reason #138 why I don’t argue w/ them. I will give my standard Zinn-head release:
Yes, Howard Zinn is the greatest historian to ever walk the earth. His book, The People’s History, is the bible for all people wanting to understand the true history of the US and world. It should be required reading for all students. Preferably it should be memorized, befitting a bible. I find purple Kool-Aid and cookies helps the younger ones stay on task.
Reefpoint? Excellent!
Nick: When you think you’ve figured out who I am, let me know, will ya.
People should take responsibility for their assertions and don’t consistently try to weasel out of them.
Olly, I just figured out who T Hall is. We need to talk. I can’t find your email in my contacts. Please email me or message me elsewhere. Thanks.
Chrissake, I have said here MANY times I do not believe in the death penalty, on religious and practical grounds. When you say “I thought you favored the death penalty” that eliminates you from people that I will engage, because you are not a serious person if you make a statement like that. It says you are ignorant of what I have said, just plain ignorant and presumptive, manipulative, or some hybrid.
Regarding the Zinn stuff. “Something you heard in class” is telling. It’s telling about you. I TAUGHT history as well as having been a student. KCF[a person smarter than both of us] and I talk about moral relativism, SJW’s, secular progressives, all the time. Regarding historians who consider Zinn a clown, presuming an Irishwoman[I’m half Irish so I can say what I want] would know any, Arthur Schlesinger ring a bell? Now, all future questions will be ignored. One of my issues is I don’t suffer fools or foolishness well. I get your game. IAsk your vapid questions and project your stereotypes on others. All resources are limited, including my time. I have billed my time for going on 35 years and I use it wisely. Befriend the Zinn-head. Maybe he can turn you into one as well. Noam Chomsky is the new Zinn, after Zinn croaked a few years back.
T. Hall,
If you have concluded those statements indicate fear then who am I to argue with your opinion. We have differing worldviews and those statements mean something completely different in mine. The very fact that post aligned with NO political party and you missed that IS your Achilles Heel. Your filter won’t allow you to be objective which makes you useless in debate. Your ‘attacks’ are a direct result of you recognizing you’ve got nothing else to offer.
I appreciate the exchange though and I’m pleased you have recognized all of your commentary IS for all to see.
Have a great evening!