this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Books

1 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I'll go with the low-hanging fruit: Mein Kampf. I've read it, cover to cover. As a piece of propaganda, it's good. As an example of good writing? Absolutely not (though I will admit I have only read it in translation). Oh, and the whole fascist, racist, and generally shitty worldview of the author that he infuses into the text. And the fact that the author is literally Hitler. You 5-star that book? You're a Nazi. Period. And as a Jewish person, I don't look too kindly on them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CaveRanger@alien.top 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Having read most of it, even if you leave the politics aside, Mein Kampf is a bad book. Hitler should have stuck with painting.

Marx was a much better political writer. At least his dry political treatises are interesting.

[–] Flimsy_Demand7237@alien.top 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Thing was Hitler didn't even write Mein Kampf. Each chapter is comprised of rants he gave while in his prison cell to his deputy Rudolf Hess who was also incarcerated. Hess would sit with a typewriter and note down while Hitler walked around giving his usual unhinged rants. It then took around twelve drafts to be able to get the book from incomprehensible gibberish to something readable.

[–] NightWolfRose@alien.top 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I was always told- and always read- in history classes that Hitler was “charismatic and persuasive” and that’s one of the ways he rallied so many people to his cause. Was that an exaggeration or one of those “you had to be there” type things?

[–] Flimsy_Demand7237@alien.top 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sort of. He had a dramatic way of speaking that drew you in. People would be enrapt in the rage and passion with which he spoke, and eventually he got enough airtime that people started to believe the crazy he was talking. The main thing with Hitler is you have to realise Germany was in turmoil for nearly a decade prior to his election. Multiple elections happened over the space of a couple years because no leader could get the country out of the economic rut it was in as a hangover from WWI and then the reparations demanded by other countries impacted by Germany in WWI. Some governments by the end were lasting maybe 6 months tops, failing at the post then being turfed out because the country was at a standstill. With the Great Depression being felt as well probably hardest in Germany, many were out on the street, unemployed, or straight up pissed at how the country was being run. And in this climate of uncertainty, crisis, and mismanagement Hitler was given the vacuum to rise off of his 'inspiring' political speeches that were more channeling people's rage than anything else. He was a leader who seemed to speak for everyone's anger. And in his speeches he gave people clear targets to direct their hatred where other political leaders were more reserved -- Hitler would go "you are in this mess because The Jews took all your money" or "economically this country is in the dumpster because of the Treaty of Versailles (the reparations to countries). I will rip up that treaty first thing I do." and a sizeable portion of the nation figured "well this guy is actually on the same page as us, pissed off with the political system, and he's giving us the reasons where other leaders aren't" and his normally fringe party gained prominence through the big parties failing hard.

He really was a product of a very specific portion of turmoil in Germany's history. If the country were functioning normally at a government level, someone like Hitler would never have gotten even close to power. And then he was elected on the proviso of the conservative government in a coalition with the Nazi party, needing both to form government as the elections were a hung parliament. They figured Hitler could be the populist puppet the conservative leaders could control and use while they got things working again. Of course, that never happened and Hitler as soon as he got power started eliminating any sense of power sharing within a year or two.

[–] NightWolfRose@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for this. That was more informative than years of public school coverage of WWII and the lead up to it.

I knew about the Treaty of Versailles and how harsh it was- or was at least perceived to be- but not about Hitler’s promise to do away with it.

Do you have any preferred authors/books for further reading on the subject? I’m still trying to undo years of poor education from being taught in a conservative school.

[–] Flimsy_Demand7237@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Most of my knowledge comes from Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography of Hitler. He's one of the foremost English-language academic historians studying Nazi Germany. He gives an excellent overview of the conditions in Germany, the political machinations throughout as well as an in-depth study of Hitler both as a person and his moves as dictator. I was interested in the subject mostly because I find Hollywood and more standard school education doesn't really go into detail as to how the Nazis ran the Axis side of the war or what life was like in Nazi Germany, and Hitler's characterisation is mostly a "big bad villain guy" with nothing beyond that. Kershaw's biography filled in those blanks for me.

[–] NightWolfRose@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Thank you kindly! I’ll be hitting up the nonfiction section of my local bookshops to try and find them.

I’ve always been curious about that period in history.