Question

[Anonymouse]

It has been a thrilling pastime for those who want to equate the rise of National Socialism to a few pimply faced teenagers. By pinning National Socialism with the atrocities and war, it ensures to stifle and positive and or open discussion of National Socialism. It is a skillfull art of those who control the past, by controlling the present, to deter any and all honest inquiries into the realm of history with regard to Hitler. And all too often when we hear his name we think of "Holocaust" and "Hater" and "madman", but never the real man.

As someone who has read Mein Kampf, and has taken to a more revisionist approach to history ( if it is the truth it can't be revisionist ), I'll be the first to tell you that there are many myths about Hitler and National Socialism in general, not that I am a supporter, but I believe in historical accuracy, and if Marx, Communism/Marxism and Democracy can get their fair share of attention, why not National Socialism and Hitler?

Thousands of books written on the guy, and not one dare approach it honestly. Hitler, and his views for as long as after WW2, has been demonized in books, films, documentaries, schools, etc. I would offer you a book on Hitler, but I find it no justice and perhaps the best book to read is Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf.

Many have dismissed Hitler's intellectual outlook as simplistic and crude or even crazy, nto because they have studied, but because that is popular. Most mainstream historians, for fear of being blackballed or labeled with the tarbrush of "anti-Semitism" will give up on intellectual and historical honesty and integrity, to save themselves the trouble of being accused as hate mongers, ala David Irving who was in a trial with the Jewish historian Deborah Lipstadt for slander in her book towards Irving regarding his views on questioning the Holocaust, of course he was accused of being a "Denier".

But when one reads into Hitler, one sees a genuine intellectual on a par with Karl Marx, Freud, etc. He's sort of a synthesis of Spengler and Napoleon, and of all the world conquerors he had probably been the most 'philosophical'. Hitler's outlook was very much a part of the Western intellectual tradition. In his combination of an almost religious faith with a revolutionary secularism he represented the continuation of an essentially "enlightenment" style of thought. Nazism, and especially Hitler's exposition of it, represented an attenuated and popularized form of the Enlightenment style of thought, in my opinion, one based on the natural inequalities and imperfections of nature.

[Dan]

Does anyone know of any books that outline the positive outcomes of- Hilter and Nazism?

Why? Was Nazism bad? And in what way was it bad? And who says it is/was bad? Those who won the war, by any chance?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Dan Why? Was Nazism bad? And in what way was it bad? And who says it is/was bad? Those who won the war, by any chance?

Boy you should have seen me when I was at Border's when I bought Mein Kampf. As I approached the Customer Service desk to ask if they have a copy of Mein Kampf, I felt a little apprehension, a little excitement. I felt my body growing heavy and burdened. It was comical. I felt an exhausting load accumulating on my shoulders. It's amazing how cultural conditioning can make us think a certain way. Since birth from every orifice of communication I have been taught that "Hitler is bad" simply because he is bad and he killed lots of Communists and Jews. It is on those grounds we are taught to always hate him and never have an honest inquiry on the guy.

Many people have killed other people, why do we act as if its okay to learn about them? Napolean killed lots of people, so did Stalin, so did Mao Tse Tung, but you could easily hold them in positive light in the class room, but not Hitler. Why was this? I always wanted to know and perhaps it was the curiosity in me that led to me to read up on the man, and on the Jews as well, yes I'd be accused of Jewphobia by the average lemming. Curiosity killed the cat, but not the mouse.

Well as I approached the desk, there was a punk rocker type chick in her mid 20s at the reference desk, whom you could see is "alternative" and all about "not hating" and "xxxx corporatism" and all these lofty ideals these stupid "rebels" and "counter culture" people hold on to. As I approach her to ask for Mein Kampf, I feel the shame rise up inside me ( why should we feel this feeling if we want to learn about something or someone, why are we conditioned in this manner? ). When I ask for the book the butch appears to avert her eyes as she tells me where to go. It’s as if she recognizes the shameful act that I am about to perform but does not want me to see it in her eyes, that she understands that I want to read a book that no person with decent sensibilities would want to read.

Anyway, just thought I'd share that.

[spiral]

Originally posted by Dan Why? Was Nazism bad? And in what way was it bad? And who says it is/was bad? Those who won the war, by any chance?

where exactly did I mention that Nazism was good or bad?

I asked for the books, because I have a paper to write, and I need some books, which take a more objective/positive outlook on the issue.

I couldn't find any. I searched the net, I didn't find any info. So I though I'd ask the forum.

[Dan]

Hey mouse, thanks for sharing. sad, eh?

hey spiral, don't misunderstand me, dude. just that when you said the "positive outcomes" of Nazism, it just gave me the impression that you considered Nazism to be hideous and wrong. and besides, i was making a general observation. so no need to get all angry, etc.

[spiral]

I'm not angry

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by spiral where exactly did I mention that Nazism was good or bad?

I asked for the books, because I have a paper to write, and I need some books, which take a more objective/positive outlook on the issue.

I couldn't find any. I searched the net, I didn't find any info. So I though I'd ask the forum.

I'd recommend Mein Kampf.

As for seconardy books, I'd deeply recommend "Into The Darkness", by Lothrop Stoddard

Here is a link to Amazon.com for it:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0939482592/qid=1074559249/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9963674-5425566?v=glance&s=books

And here is a review from the link which I thought was superb for the book as the person summarized it better than I can:

Twentieth-century America's most perceptive, influential, and prophetic writer on race -- Lothrop Stoddard -- spent four months in late 1939-early 1940 covering National Socialist Germany, as its leaders and its people girded for total war. Stoddard criss-crossed the Third Reich to observe nearly every aspect of its political, social, economic, and military life, and he talked with men and women from all walks of life, from Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels to taxi drivers and chambermaids. The result -- Into the Darkness -- is not only a classic of World War II reportage, but a unique evaluation of Germany's National Socialist experiment. For Stoddard was no ordinary journalist. A Harvard Ph.D in history, the author of The Rising Tide of Color and other works that played a key role in the enactment of America's 1924 immigration act, fluent in German and deeply versed in European politics and culture, Stoddard brought to Into the Darkness a sophistication and a sympathy impossible for William Shirer and a myriad of other journalistic hacks. To be sure, the New England Yankee Stoddard was no supporter of the Hitler dictatorship, but he was deeply interested in National Socialist policies, above all in the social and the racial sphere. Reading Into the Darkness brings you to hearings before a German eugenics court, to an ancestral farm in Westphalia, to the headquarters of the National Labor Service, to German markets, factories, medical clinics, and welfare offices, as keenly observed and analyzed by Stoddard. You'll read, too, of Stoddard's conversations with German policy makers in all fields: Hans F. K. Guenther and Fritz Lenz on race and eugenics; Walther Darré on agriculture; Robert Ley on labor; Gertrud Scholz-Klink on women in the Third Reich; General Alexander Löhr on the Luftwaffe's Polish campaign, as well as Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and many other leaders. And you'll travel with Stoddard to Slovakia, where he interviews Monsignor Tiso, the national leader later put to death by the Communists, and to Hungary, where the Magyars, still at peace, gaze apprehensively at Soviet Russia. Into the Darkness (so named from the mandatory air-defense blackout that Stoddard found so vexing) shines a torch of sanity and truth against the vituperation of all things National Socialist that has been practically obligatory for the past sixty years. Knowledgeable, urbane, skeptical, and above all fair, Stoddard's book is a unique, an indispensable historical document, a time capsule for truth, and a stimulating page-turner for everyone interested in the Third Reich and the German people.

[spiral]

Thank you

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by spiral Thank you

Go get that book. That's about all I can offer.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan Hey mouse, thanks for sharing. sad, eh?

hey spiral, don't misunderstand me, dude. just that when you said the "positive outcomes" of Nazism, it just gave me the impression that you considered Nazism to be hideous and wrong. and besides, i was making a general observation. so no need to get all angry, etc.

There is nothing inherently "wrong" about Nazism that isn't wrong with just about any form of government. The problem with dictatorial regimes is that they typically come under the control of a person who was the most willing to sacrifice principle, or kill whoever he needed to kill, to get into his position. Rarely is an enlightened, moral, and sane person put into the position of dictator. It isn't necessarily that power corrupts, but that people who were corrupt to begin with came into power.

Hitler, like any other man with his intelligence and ferocity, had plenty of great ideas, most notably, as the mouse has already pointed out, the purification of the German gene pool. I think he went about it the wrong way when he began to focus on religious and racial purification rather than intellectual, but he did have the idea somewhat close to right in the beginning. Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that the murder of millions of people who are essentially innocent is always wrong, whether they be mentally impaired, physically handicapped, or of an ethnicity other than the party in power at the time.

There is a very good reason that Hitler is vilified. He attempted to conquer most of the civilized world, and in the process, he pissed off a lot of people. I think it is fair to say that he got a little out of hand, and historically, he has gotten what he deserved. His ideas were not all that original and they are studied by many.