Cordon Sanitaire

[Frelga]

Nin

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Whatever else it is, it's boring, badly written, largely incomprehensible to an English reader reading what could have been a crappy translation. Most of what I remember (read it many years ago) I recall as truly being the tedious ravings of a more or less loony guy. A mish mash of various kinds of crap.

I find it hard to imagine anyone being seduced by it. It is pretty dumb.

Dumb being a technical term for Stupid.

I haven't read it, and I have no desire to read it. I've never been particularly fascinated with Hitler. Of course, he was one of the towering historical figures of the twentieth century, but I am disinclined to believe that events were particularly shaped by Herr Schicklgruber. Rather, Hitler happened because of events; he was the symptom rather than the pathogen. So his "struggle" is, for me, very much on the periphery. Which brings me to my major objection to publishing Mein Kampf only as an annotated edition; it elevates the work. Only special objects deserve special treatment...

I dislike censorship even more than I dislike '-isms'. Complex ideas and ideals are squeezed into narrow, simplistic ideologies, and the individuals involved are caricatured. History suffers equivalent distortions; an agreed narrative is an organic process that veers easily from any historical accuracy. Superheroes and Supervillains belong in comic books, not the pages of history. Hitler, Churchill, Mussolini, Roosevelt, Stalin, Tojo; they all were important individuals, but the cults that have grown up around them are gross distortions. And they are fed by just such actions as this qualified publishing of Mein Kampf.

ETA My apologies to Nin. I cross posted.

[vison]

You have a point.

However, we "took" Mein Kampf in high school. This was . . . let's see . ..1960, so 15 years after the end of WWII. I guess "we" looked at things differently then. Many of my teachers were veterans, many of our fathers and uncles were veterans, the war was still fresh in adult memories.

I was, perhaps, fortunate that the teacher who introduced us to the book was himself a veteran with a very interesting story and who guided us through the bits we had to read.

I didn't have to read the whole thing, but I more or less did. It stayed with me as an astonishing thing that something so inane had once had such power.

I understand and respect Nin's perspective, but I do not share it.

[Frelga]

See, if that was the opening post...

Also, Churchill? Has anyone been arrested for not saluting his portrait? Veneration <> cult.

Old Soviet joke - Moscow, 1946. A street car. One passenger says aloud, "All our troubles are because of that mustachioed bastard." Instantly, a policeman appears, arrests him, and brings him directly to Stalin. (he does, OK? Accept it.)

"Who did you have in mind?" Stalin asks on hearing the story.

"Why, Hitler, who else!" the hapless passenger replies.

"I see." Stalin turns to the policeman. "And who did you have in mind?"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thank you, Nin, for posting your thoughts and perspective. I appreciate you doing that.

[Nin]

GBG, I happen to disagree about the role of Hitler in history in several ways. The question if individuals or ideas make history is classic, but I don't see them as an opposition.

I do believe in collective guilt because Hitler could not have reached his domination over Germany - and from there over huge parts of Europe - without the active support of several thousands and the passivity of millions. But then, there is a step from looking away to calling for murder and from there to killing. Hitler was a catalysator - sure enough - but the reaction to the economical and political situation in Germany afer WWI and the 1929 crisis was not necessarily anti-semitic and mass-mouderous. Certainly, nationalism was "in the air of time". But the agressive and destructive side of this nationalism, the side which led to the Shoah - that is specific to Hitler's ideology. Any many even of his followers accepted them as such: side-effects. But they are in the heart of his ideology. And in the heart of his book.

Hitler as a person ins in the centre of structure which concentrates power around him. So, the Shoah could not have happened without the silent millions. But also not without the (very loud) one. As such he has a particular position.

[nerdanel]

Nin, thanks for that heartfelt and illuminating post. You've essentially caused me to feel vindicated in my view on this topic: this is a question for the German people to decide, based on their unique history and relationship to this text and to the man who wrote it. When it comes to the United States, my views on free speech issues align almost perfectly with libertarians. However, if the German people decide that they cannot follow a libertarian course when it comes to the writings of Hitler, then I feel that their determination takes precedence over my general, theoretical support for free speech absolutism.

ETA My above view is partly for this reason: I support free speech absolutism partly because I believe in the "marketplace of ideas" - that the best cure for free speech is more free speech. But at one point in its history, Germany was not able to sustain a "marketplace of ideas" sufficient to rebut Mein Kampf. Noxious ideas were not weeded out through reasoned discourse, and the result was genocide. Thus, if Germany elects special treatment for those ideas that should have been weeded out but were not and that led to mass murder, I certainly accept their decision to do so.

[Túrin Turambar]

I can understand the rationale for banning Mein Kampf as part of de-Nazification, but these days all that I think it does it give it mystique that it does not deserve. I don’t believe that anybody was ever won over to Nazism by reading that book. It is, as others have already pointed out, simply a bad read. Maybe it sounds better in German, but in English it is simply overlong, disorganised, turgid and banal. I cannot imagine anyone not already a Nazi supporter finding it of any value. Hitler won people over with his speeches, but he wasn’t a good writer. I think it is well and truly time to simply recognise it as another relic of the Nazi era.

[Pearly Di]

Nin ... thanks for your post.

Also, Churchill? Has anyone been arrested for not saluting his portrait? Veneration <> cult.

*snort* Quite so, Frelga.

Old Soviet joke - Moscow, 1946. A street car. One passenger says aloud, "All our troubles are because of that mustachioed bastard." Instantly, a policeman appears, arrests him, and brings him directly to Stalin. (he does, OK? Accept it.)

"Who did you have in mind?" Stalin asks on hearing the story.

"Why, Hitler, who else!" the hapless passenger replies.

"I see." Stalin turns to the policeman. "And who did you have in mind?"

Ha. Brilliant.

[Nin]

Several comments:

Maybe it sounds better in German, but in English it is simply overlong, disorganised, turgid and banal.

In German too. From the parts I have read, it is boring to death and awfuly language. But I disagree with your second opinion.

I cannot imagine anyone not already a Nazi supporter finding it of any value.

I have delved into the realms of neonazis - only internetwise, starting from research of documentation. The moments in which I did so left me deeply disturbed... Anyway, there is among persons a fascination for Hitler which is still intact. And if you read how people became Neonazis, several will mention how fascinating was the read of "Mein Kampf" for them - finally a book which explained it all, which they understood and which said it all very clearly. Hitler in his book does not take gloves or political acceptable speech, like other extreme right parties do today. He is blunt and brutal. And at least for some readers this blunt language is the one which finally says it all and does not fear.

Nerdanel, what you said, came to my mind yesterday: maybe those of you who come from other backgrounds see it differently. But in Germany at some point, Hitler's words were law. The Germans had nothing to set against that discours. You could go to prison for not saying "Heil Hitler" instead of "Good morning.". In a country where your way of greeting other people in the streeets was decided by politics and had to be in the name of a dictator, free speech did not exist and was not desired. A majority of Germans welcomed Hitler and supported him for long years.

Now, after almost 70 years of democracy, you can eventually say that even in Germany a mentality has grown which allows to oppose something to this hate speech. But the mentality change was not there in the 50s or 60s - and personally I think at least until the fall of the Wall in 1989: Germany was still a divided country. Since then, in all of Germany, this democratic spirit did have the time to grow and to take roots; so maybe now the time is ripe to allow this speech again without fearing people will massively follow it. But I understand the fear.

On the other hand, what bothers me about forbidding "Mein Kampf" is that censorship was the method of the Nazis, going of course as far as burning books publicly. The nazis did not allow free speech or free writing. To oppose their ideas by using their own methods seems wrong somehow. Yet, I understand that for long years, Germans mistrusted themselves (I still do mistrust myself) and felt the necessity to be "safe" - kept safe from the temptation to listen to those words again. Kept safe from the temptation of hatred after another lost war. (By the way, in Germany the word "veterans" is not commonly used, neither for those who fought WWI nor WWII. The reading you describe vison, would have been impossible in Germany, especially in the 60ies. It is easy to tead "Mein Kampf" and to say that this is what you fought against - it is impossible to say that this is what you fought for.)

Nowadays, I think Germany can say that this what they built their democracy against. But first, they had to build it for long years.

edited for typos

[nerdanel]

I can understand the rationale for banning Mein Kampf as part of de-Nazification, but these days all that I think it does it give it mystique that it does not deserve.

L_M: And consistent with your observation, Germany is moving from banning the book altogether to publishing it with commentary (which hardly leaves much in the way of mystique and at some level does recognize it as a "relic of the Nazi era").

Yet, I understand that for long years, Germans mistrusted themselves (I still do mistrust myself) and felt the necessity to be "safe" - kept safe from the temptation to listen to those words again. Kept safe from the temptation of hatred after another lost war.

Nin - Exactly: my perception as an outsider has been that this was their conclusion, and I felt that we outsiders should "defer" to their judgment about what was necessary for their country in this very unique circumstance. (That is, I am not advocating generally that people outside a particular country should necessarily defer to that country's free speech (or lack thereof) policies.)

Nowadays, I think Germany can say that this what they built their democracy against. But first, they had to build it for long years.

And now that they have built it, they are evolving away from censorship and towards allowing the book to reenter the "marketplace of ideas" in a restricted and discredited way. Perhaps given even more time, they will view the commentary as unnecessary. Given this, I see the initial censorship of the book as a necessary, time-limited evil that can be justified given the nation's history. (It reminds me by analogy of our Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the affirmative action context - "Given our distinctive history of slavery and segregation, using racial preferences can be justified for a time - but will not be justifiable forever.")

[vison]

Yet, I understand that for long years, Germans mistrusted themselves (I still do mistrust myself) and felt the necessity to be "safe" - kept safe from the temptation to listen to those words again.

In what way do you "mistrust yourself"?

Nin, of all the people on this forum, you are probably the last one who would be drawn to "those words".

It's up to the German people to decide what they are going to do, but the threat of NeoNazism is not confined to Germany.

I agree with Lord_M: all this "care" and "safety" is granting an importance and validity to the book that it does not deserve.

It is not radioactive. It can be handled without gloves and leas shielding.

[Nin]

No, vison, of course the threat of Neonazism is not confined to Germany. But coming from Germany, it would be million times worse.

About the mistrust, more another day.