• As are most people on this board, I am a World War 2 geek.  When I was in college I took every german history and world war 2 class that I could.  One of the books I read as a source was Mein Kamph.  It of course was not assigned, but I felt (and still do feel) it was pertinent to the classes I was taking.  Out of the 4 or 5 prof I had that taught history, none had read the book.  I have only met one person other than myself who had read the book, and he was a neo nazi who took a lot of the same classes I had for obvious reasons (real idiot too, he thought that jews turned into goats on the full moon).

    That being said I just had a wierd experience at work not too long ago.  I get “WW2” magazine and I read it at work during breaks or free time.  A guy I work with (nice as hell) noticed it and asked me about it.  Told him I was a WW2 geek and all, and even mentioned I had read Mein Kamph.  He said he had too - which is wierd as hell because who in the hell reads that crap other than WW2 geeks.  He is going to college right now to be an engineer.  At any rate I assured him I was not some whack job nazi, and than he told me “No, I wasn’t thinking that.  There is nothing wrong with reading that, it is just an alternative point of view”.  I was thinking “What the F***”?

    Don’t get me wrong, he is a real nice guy.  Never had a problem with him at all.  But doesn’t that sound a little F***'d up?  Hitler having an “alternative point of view” is worse than Dalmer having “an alternative point of view”.  Crazy is just that - crazy.  What do you guys think?


  • I’d say it’s a perfect example of the culture of “Acceptance,” and “Diversity” in the West. Nothing is wrong, evil, or crazy; just “Different.” And we must all accept differences. :roll:


  • A guy I know read (I haven’t myself) it and I was around when he was reading the parts about using the media it made me uncomfortable that a couple of things he quoted sounded right on.

    I don’t think your aquaintance was crazy for suggesting that it was an alternative viewpoint. He didn’t say anything about anyone having to accept it. To quote Spock, “I was not attempting to evaluate the ethical implications, Doctor.”

    Maybe he felt you were being defensive and was attempting to put you at ease.

    A coin has two sides as the saying goes.


  • Most of it is about the resurection of Germany.  Very little of it (at least the version I purchased and read about 20 years ago) was about the Jews and Gypsies.

    By and large, it was a borad outline for HOW to make Germany strong again, and how to increase the size and power of Germany.

    Even with the religious aspects, it was not terribly different (except perhaps in bluntness) of our own DOD evaluations about Iraq and all the religious aspects of that political stabilization and control, though perhaps a bit less detailed than our reports.


  • Hitler had a lot of ‘quiet time’ in prison, and he organized his thoughts on seizing power and raising Germany’s power and prestige in the world view.  He set this up as a guideline, and he followed it.  People who read it at that time didn’t believe it, I guess.


  • This is a problem concerning looking back on history.  What you know of Hitler (primarily killing millions of people and starting a war) can be attributed to him from when he was conceived until his death.  You look upon him with that lens always on.  That’s probably why you were turned off when this individual said that Hitler’s book (not killing millions of people) was a different POV, by association.


  • @Jermofoot:

    This is a problem concerning looking back on history.  What you know of Hitler (primarily killing millions of people and starting a war) can be attributed to him from when he was conceived until his death.  You look upon him with that lens always on.  That’s probably why you were turned off when this individual said that Hitler’s book (not killing millions of people) was a different POV, by association.

    That is an excellent point. Our looks back tend to be colored by our present preferences. They can interfere with objectivity.

    Hitler is one of the most important figures of the last century. Reading the autobiographys and biographys of important people has always been considered part of being literate.


  • @frimmel:

    @Jermofoot:

    This is a problem concerning looking back on history.  What you know of Hitler (primarily killing millions of people and starting a war) can be attributed to him from when he was conceived until his death.  You look upon him with that lens always on.  That’s probably why you were turned off when this individual said that Hitler’s book (not killing millions of people) was a different POV, by association.

    That is an excellent point. Our looks back tend to be colored by our present preferences. They can interfere with objectivity.

    Hitler is one of the most important figures of the last century. Reading the autobiographys and biographys of important people has always been considered part of being literate.

    satan is an important person but i prefer to read the Bible and not his book. your freind didn’t want to offend you and tried to sound nice even though he thought you were a whacko nazi.

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 27
  • 22
  • 25
  • 6
  • 11
  • 15
  • 84
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

55

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts