FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Mein Kampf

Mein Kampf

Jump to: Newest in thread

By *hyllyphylly OP Man over a year ago

Bradford

The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Already have, not a literary classic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *enard ArgenteMan over a year ago

London and France

I agree:

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense Mein kampf is just the rantings of a mad man with nothing but hate in his heart .

Its best avoided

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Already have, not a literary classic. "

What do you expect from a painter?

Any pics?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I own and have read it already, its no exactly a book by a literary genius

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense "

Other than none of his predictions coming true, his ideas completely failing when tested on the real world and his complete lack of understanding regarding productivity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Already have, not a literary classic. "

Agreed, it's pretty disappointing for someone who is supposed to be Evil Inc. - he just wasn't all that bright

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

Although Bavaria never permitted it to be published, so many copies were produced that it was never hard to find one. It is dreadfully written and, quite frankly, the incoherent ramblings of a stupid man. It doesn't even really give any sort of insight into that big question of why Germany tolerated yet alone supported such evil tyranny. It is not worth reading.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I expect a lot of people from the white population in the southern American states might

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

Other than none of his predictions coming true, his ideas completely failing when tested on the real world and his complete lack of understanding regarding productivity."

as I said "some" sense lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

Other than none of his predictions coming true, his ideas completely failing when tested on the real world and his complete lack of understanding regarding productivity.

as I said "some" sense lol "

As I said "other than"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

Other than none of his predictions coming true, his ideas completely failing when tested on the real world and his complete lack of understanding regarding productivity.

as I said "some" sense lol

As I said "other than"

Joking aside, Marx talked about economics in the context of people (surprisingly rare) which made it relatable, albeit highly inaccurate. That was the clever bit in my opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erbyDalesCplCouple over a year ago

Derbyshire

"Anyone going to read it?

Nah. I always find it spoils a book once you know how it ends...

Mr ddc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator."

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Anyone going to read it?

Nah. I always find it spoils a book once you know how it ends...

Mr ddc"

Titanic was alright

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!"

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erbyDalesCplCouple over a year ago

Derbyshire

"Anyone going to read it?

Nah. I always find it spoils a book once you know how it ends...

Mr ddc

Titanic was alright"

Only because with the way Hollywood re-writes history, you could never really be sure it would sink until the very end...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid."

Try it, you might be surprised.

Truth is that he wasn't even the most powerful Nazi, nor the smartest or even the most evil. He was a figure head and a convenient scapegoat for idiots like Chamberlain who didn't pull the trigger when they had the chance. It's also highly probable that he was an imense drug addict which could explain some of his appalling military failures.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Anyone going to read it?

Nah. I always find it spoils a book once you know how it ends...

Mr ddc

Titanic was alright

Only because with the way Hollywood re-writes history, you could never really be sure it would sink until the very end...

I'm just glad that we didn't find out at the end that the reason it sunk was because of aliens

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erbyDalesCplCouple over a year ago

Derbyshire

"Anyone going to read it?

Nah. I always find it spoils a book once you know how it ends...

Mr ddc

Titanic was alright

Only because with the way Hollywood re-writes history, you could never really be sure it would sink until the very end...

I'm just glad that we didn't find out at the end that the reason it sunk was because of aliens"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *errygTV/TS over a year ago

denton

hitler wasnt that stupid i watch a dvd about him , germany was a poor country and when hitler came to power germany was rebuilt during the nazi period they technology in rockets far ahead of anyone else, and a lot of germans didnt support hitler, but the power went to his head making mistakes he thought he was invincable, like most dictators, he ruled by fear

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"hitler wasnt that stupid i watch a dvd about him , germany was a poor country and when hitler came to power germany was rebuilt during the nazi period they technology in rockets far ahead of anyone else, and a lot of germans didnt support hitler, but the power went to his head making mistakes he thought he was invincable, like most dictators, he ruled by fear"

Correlation is not causation. If Hitler wasn't such a bigot they would probably have got nukes rather than just cruise missiles.

I concur with Forrest Gump that "stupid is as stupid does" and when a leader chucks away a resource like Albert Einstein for being a jew, then that's at least a character flaw.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

Other than none of his predictions coming true, his ideas completely failing when tested on the real world and his complete lack of understanding regarding productivity.

as I said "some" sense lol

As I said "other than"

Joking aside, Marx talked about economics in the context of people (surprisingly rare) which made it relatable, albeit highly inaccurate. That was the clever bit in my opinion. "

Yes it was an interesting concept, sadly he didn't figure in human nature lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *razedcatMan over a year ago

London / Herts

I read Mein Kampf a few years ago. I agree that it is a poorly written, largely incoherent piece of work, although I've heard there exists some controversy surrounding its translation. Now that the publishing rights have been opened up, I plan on buying a copy.

As for Hitler himself, I won't deny that he was a remarkably unifying and motivating leader, and helped interwar Germany become a global power. I am also aware that, as is the case today, we are at risk of being fed a great deal of mistruth about world leaders.

But, all things considered, Mr. Hitler was a spiteful, self absorbed man living in a world of delusions, even as Russian artillery was raining down on the Fuhrerbunker in April 1945.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I already read it. Terribly written....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I am also aware that, as is the case today, we are at risk of being fed a great deal of mistruth about world leaders.

Tru' dat but there are some facts we can grasp:

Successes -

1) Diplomacy: played Chamberlain for a fool and to a lesser extent Stalin.

2) Popularity: He did get elected

3) Germany had some notable achievements in WW2 such as the way it defeated France

Failures -

1) He fell for operation mincemeat and got played for a fool himself

2) The invasion of the Soviet Union ended in disaster - read a bit of history ffs

3) It makes absolutely no sense to piss away resources on extermination camps when you are losing a war - that's just plain stupid

On balance, a better leader could have won WW2 from his position after France fell. In my opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Chamberlain was duped. That doesn't make Hitler his scapegoat.

Re drugs - highly probable doesn't make it a fact. Just like it's highly probable according to recent research that hitler had parkinsons. Vocal recordings come to light recently suggest he was a very charming man. He certainly had psychopathic traits.

Of course he surrounded himself with very powerful men who were loyal to him and stayed with him in their last days in the bunker.

None of this is suggestive that he was stupid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Chamberlain was duped. That doesn't make Hitler his scapegoat.

Of course he surrounded himself with very powerful men who were loyal to him and stayed with him in their last days in the bunker.

None of this is suggestive that he was stupid."

Which is not to say he didn't make "stupid" mistakes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Chamberlain was duped."

I'm just pointing out that our GCSE history syllabus would have you believe Hitler was some kind of evil genius, which is a much easier version of events than it is to take responsibility for the many failings on the allied side to prevent WW2 from happening. Reading his book makes you realise how un-special Hitler was.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Chamberlain was duped. That doesn't make Hitler his scapegoat.

Of course he surrounded himself with very powerful men who were loyal to him and stayed with him in their last days in the bunker.

None of this is suggestive that he was stupid.

Which is not to say he didn't make "stupid" mistakes."

OK but in my definition of the word, "stupid is as stupid does" so actions speak louder than IQ in my opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *verysmileMan over a year ago

Canterbury

It has been available on the net for years.

The first few chapters go some way to explain the reasons behind his psychosis.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Chamberlain was duped?

Was he? if the German military had not thought that England was a soft target, They would have continued the fight at Dunkirk and crossed the channel instead they split the forces and went to fight Russia allowing us to go to WONGA (USA) borrow money and build an army to fight the forces left to fight in the west.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I keep meaning to read it along with das kapitol but never have.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Chamberlain was duped. That doesn't make Hitler his scapegoat.

Of course he surrounded himself with very powerful men who were loyal to him and stayed with him in their last days in the bunker.

None of this is suggestive that he was stupid.

Which is not to say he didn't make "stupid" mistakes.

OK but in my definition of the word, "stupid is as stupid does" so actions speak louder than IQ in my opinion. "

If "stupid" is all that it took to drag nearly the whole world into war what does that say about the rest of the world.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Possibly a silly question here, but who will benefit from the profits of his book sales? Will a non German publisher take over printing as I doubt any German company would want to be associated? ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Possibly a silly question here, but who will benefit from the profits of his book sales? Will a non German publisher take over printing as I doubt any German company would want to be associated? ?"

Presumably anyone can now.

Its hardly been a poorly published book to this point theres a copy in most libraries

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Chamberlain was duped?

What is the relevance of that to the policy of appeasement?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 01/01/16 18:21:50]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Chamberlain was duped?

What is the relevance of that to the policy of appeasement? "

It let him make a "relevant" popculture reference?

Does there need to be any more relevance for most points

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"Already have, not a literary classic. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Chamberlain was duped. That doesn't make Hitler his scapegoat.

Of course he surrounded himself with very powerful men who were loyal to him and stayed with him in their last days in the bunker.

None of this is suggestive that he was stupid.

Which is not to say he didn't make "stupid" mistakes.

OK but in my definition of the word, "stupid is as stupid does" so actions speak louder than IQ in my opinion.

If "stupid" is all that it took to drag nearly the whole world into war what does that say about the rest of the world."

I wouldn't agree that Hitler dragged the world into war. Evil happens when good men are busy paving the way to hell with their intentions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Chamberlain was duped. That doesn't make Hitler his scapegoat.

Of course he surrounded himself with very powerful men who were loyal to him and stayed with him in their last days in the bunker.

None of this is suggestive that he was stupid.

Which is not to say he didn't make "stupid" mistakes.

OK but in my definition of the word, "stupid is as stupid does" so actions speak louder than IQ in my opinion.

If "stupid" is all that it took to drag nearly the whole world into war what does that say about the rest of the world.

I wouldn't agree that Hitler dragged the world into war. Evil happens when good men are busy paving the way to hell with their intentions. "

Really? He did a pretty good job of that, you know?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Chamberlain was duped. That doesn't make Hitler his scapegoat.

Of course he surrounded himself with very powerful men who were loyal to him and stayed with him in their last days in the bunker.

None of this is suggestive that he was stupid.

Which is not to say he didn't make "stupid" mistakes.

OK but in my definition of the word, "stupid is as stupid does" so actions speak louder than IQ in my opinion.

If "stupid" is all that it took to drag nearly the whole world into war what does that say about the rest of the world.

I wouldn't agree that Hitler dragged the world into war. Evil happens when good men are busy paving the way to hell with their intentions. "

Well he did invade a bunch of countries.

But wonderfully mixed metaphor there makes it so its literally meaningless

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"I expect a lot of people from the white population in the southern American states might

there is a "i don't think they would be able to read it in a library" joke.... follow by "whats a library!"

its an interesting reads.... just so you get a better feel for the nonsense of a madman...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Already have, not a literary classic.

Agreed, it's pretty disappointing for someone who is supposed to be Evil Inc. - he just wasn't all that bright "

One of life's, in the right place at the right time. At a turbulent time in world history. He was despised by President Hindenburg. Referred to him as "vulgar little corporal".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Chamberlain was duped. That doesn't make Hitler his scapegoat.

Of course he surrounded himself with very powerful men who were loyal to him and stayed with him in their last days in the bunker.

None of this is suggestive that he was stupid.

Which is not to say he didn't make "stupid" mistakes.

OK but in my definition of the word, "stupid is as stupid does" so actions speak louder than IQ in my opinion.

If "stupid" is all that it took to drag nearly the whole world into war what does that say about the rest of the world.

I wouldn't agree that Hitler dragged the world into war. Evil happens when good men are busy paving the way to hell with their intentions.

Well he did invade a bunch of countries.

But wonderfully mixed metaphor there makes it so its literally meaningless "

The meaning is in the large lump of text that got quoted beforehand!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

France fell in two weeks, I believe. The Kaiser spent four years and didn't achieve this goal. The German military machine was one of the most incredibly well prepared fighting machines the world had ever seen. Like many before him though, the Russian campaign was their downfall. Hitler broke his own rule. Attempting to fight a war on two fronts. The allies also made some memorable cock ups, before turning the tide of war.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Agreed, that's why I listed that under his successes in my reply to grazed cat.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obyn GravesTV/TS over a year ago

1127 walnut avenue

I've read it years ago nothing special,,, though compared to any of the garbage that Katie price spews out,, its a literary classic..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I've read it years ago nothing special,,, though compared to any of the garbage that Katie price spews out,, its a literary classic.. "

To be fair, I wouldn't have necessarily assumed Katie could read and write properly so I'm impressed she managed to get a book out the door

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"I've read it years ago nothing special,,, though compared to any of the garbage that Katie price spews out,, its a literary classic.. "

I compare it more with the rantings of katie hopkins rather than katie price..........

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Chamberlain was duped?

What is the relevance of that to the policy of appeasement? "

Simply pointing out that despite the current trend chamberlain was somehow to blame for the war for attempting peace. Had Hitler realised the threat we would turn out to be, and not attacked Russia, he would have won

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ssex_tomMan over a year ago

Chelmsford

To be fair. If the Americans had not joined in then Merkel would be PM now

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Chamberlain was duped?

What is the relevance of that to the policy of appeasement?

OK but the way I see it is that Britain or France or the USA each had the power to defeat the Nazi's individually until about 1938, their failure to pull the trigger at that stage meant it started in late 1939 when Germany were an order of magnitude stronger. I'm saying that Chamberlain was duped into believing peace was possible rather than wiping out Hitler in 1938.

I agree that a better leader would have won the war given the German position.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

Is it as badly written as fifty shades?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"To be fair. If the Americans had not joined in then Merkel would be PM now "

Well there's the straw that broke the camels back, but only one country fought the entire war against Germany...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ssex_tomMan over a year ago

Chelmsford

True but if not for Uncle Sam we would have been toast

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"True but if not for Uncle Sam we would have been toast "

And if the Nazi's hadn't had to fight on two fronts and they took over the whole of Europe then Uncle Sam would eventually be toast so six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Western companies were massively investing in Hitler's Germany during the depression far too much for Chamberlain to have intervened in Hitler's post as chancellor.

The fact of the matter was Hitler wasn't just loved by Germans but by a whole swathe of British and American companies because his jack booted right wing fascist philosophy of crushing left wing journalists and trade unions was just working out dandy for profits!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 01/01/16 21:59:12]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Western companies were massively investing in Hitler's Germany during the depression far too much for Chamberlain to have intervened in Hitler's post as chancellor.

What's your source for this? I struggle with the idea that businesses like to operate in countries where the state arbitrarily seizes their property.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

A stupid man or one that wasn't academic in his compositions? I think it would take a very clever man to gradually take over power and become a nation's dictator.

Have you read it? I'm not sure "wasn't academic" accurately describes it!

No. I don't need to read it to know that Hitler was far from stupid.

Try it, you might be surprised.

Chamberlain was duped.

The history syllabus has changed then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Chamberlain was duped?

Yes. He believed in Hitler... Then hitler and the Russians agreed to carve up Poland between them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Chamberlain was duped?

Yes. He believed in Hitler... Then hitler and the Russians agreed to carve up Poland between them."

The only interesting part of reading MK is how explicit Adolf was about his goals for expanding Germany. Maybe Neville couldn't get a copy...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *AMES19620Man over a year ago

newport

Best debate I have read in a long time I have read both books not easy reading as they both was badly written

If you look at history lets say 4,000 years all invading army's got so big then imploded

It's the logistic of support on your front lines it can't be upheld it will eventually collaps history does repeat itself time and time again

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Best debate I have read in a long time "

Well what would a swingers site be without military history debates...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Best debate I have read in a long time

Well what would a swingers site be without military history debates... "

A much darker place - this is history, not military history btw

And save yourself the trouble - it's unreadable drivel.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Western companies were massively investing in Hitler's Germany during the depression far too much for Chamberlain to have intervened in Hitler's post as chancellor.

What's your source for this? I struggle with the idea that businesses like to operate in countries where the state arbitrarily seizes their property. "
.

Oh you'd be surprised!

Seimens, Kodak,Dupont,IBM,ford, royal Dutch, standard oil, Volkswagen, IG farben (basf), chase Manhattan...

The list of big companies backed by western capital and heads which quite literally had a hand in the very worst Nazi atrocities, this all stemmed from the depression which saw capital flood into Germany year on year from depression hit US and UK.

After the war the yanks had a congressional panel look into "trading with the enemy"

If I remember correctly Prescott bush,gw,s grandaddy was put through the wringers for his banks "laundering" of Nazi gold!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Best debate I have read in a long time

Well what would a swingers site be without military history debates...

A much darker place - this is history, not military history btw

And save yourself the trouble - it's unreadable drivel. "

I take that back - I've just read the thread.

Some staggeringly poor ideas of recent history here :/

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Oh you'd be surprised!

Seimens, Kodak,Dupont,IBM,ford, royal Dutch, standard oil, Volkswagen, IG farben (basf), chase Manhattan...

After the war the yanks had a congressional panel look into "trading with the enemy"

If I remember correctly Prescott bush,gw,s grandaddy was put through the wringers for his banks "laundering" of Nazi gold!"

This is not evidence of a plot, per se, beyond the workings of the tendrils of international capital that stretch everywhere.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Oh you'd be surprised!

Seimens, Kodak,Dupont,IBM,ford, royal Dutch, standard oil, Volkswagen, IG farben (basf), chase Manhattan...

After the war the yanks had a congressional panel look into "trading with the enemy"

If I remember correctly Prescott bush,gw,s grandaddy was put through the wringers for his banks "laundering" of Nazi gold!

This is not evidence of a plot, per se, beyond the workings of the tendrils of international capital that stretch everywhere. "
.

I'm not really a big beliver in "plots".

Just look at the facts!

Germany was the only country doing well in the entire period of the great depression!

Foreign capital investment was massive, they fucking loved the guy...

Well no they fucking loved the profits the guy was getting them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Read it years ago.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Best debate I have read in a long time

Well what would a swingers site be without military history debates...

A much darker place - this is history, not military history btw

And save yourself the trouble - it's unreadable drivel. "
.

And you declared this by your your own admission before you'd even read the thread!.

One man's drivel is another man's guardian you know

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

Other than none of his predictions coming true, his ideas completely failing when tested on the real world and his complete lack of understanding regarding productivity."
not true...the worker...average person..has the same relationship to the owners of production as he always had. He does not own it and is no nearer to owning it than he did at any time in history. Nice cars..apple phones and flat screens are great...but he does not control the huge economic forces at work. They remian in the hands of a few as they have always done.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I read this thread, deleted many replies I almost made, and now have a headache.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

Other than none of his predictions coming true, his ideas completely failing when tested on the real world and his complete lack of understanding regarding productivity.not true...the worker...average person..has the same relationship to the owners of production as he always had. He does not own it and is no nearer to owning it than he did at any time in history. Nice cars..apple phones and flat screens are great...but he does not control the huge economic forces at work. They remian in the hands of a few as they have always done."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Best debate I have read in a long time

Well what would a swingers site be without military history debates...

A much darker place - this is history, not military history btw

And save yourself the trouble - it's unreadable drivel.

I take that back - I've just read the thread.

Some staggeringly poor ideas of recent history here :/"

Could you be a bit more specific?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *udistnorthantsMan over a year ago

Desborough

Slightly off topic but the film Downfall hasn't half spawned some brilliant YouTube clips of Adolf throwing a wobbly

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"To be fair. If the Americans had not joined in then Merkel would be PM now "

And if the Americans had stopped trading with Germany when the second world war started they may never have been needed. American industry was still trading with Germany until 1942. Bit like western industries trading with IS now, while western countries are fighting IS.

Hitler made a fortune out of Mein Kampf by making it obligatory reading for all and then getting the royalties from it.

There is also mounting evidence that Hitler actually escaped from Germany at the end of the second world war.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

None of those things are brought about by capitalism though!

There technological and social advancements, you could argue that capitalism got them there quicker but there by products of capitalism!...

I've always found it tricky giving credit to an ideology through unrelated acts!

To be straight, I love capitalism, it's the best solution to economic advancement we've found so far!

But like every other ideology ie communism, it has corrupting forces at work

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Best debate I have read in a long time

Well what would a swingers site be without military history debates...

A much darker place - this is history, not military history btw

And save yourself the trouble - it's unreadable drivel.

I take that back - I've just read the thread.

Some staggeringly poor ideas of recent history here :/"

We await to be corrected

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

And yet, by magic, the average worker today - compared to when marx wrote: lives longer, has more leisure time, better health care, eats better and has more personal wealth. Such a corrupt system. But less so in the countries that put marx'd ideas into practice and more so in the ones that ignored his drivel. "
communism failed...I'm not arguing for it. The point made is that whilst Marx could not have for seen the tech revolution... Or change in class structure...or the rise in quality of life of the working person... The power of economic forces are in the hands of a small number of people...that has not changed. And the way it works has not changed that much...large parts of the world people are exploited just like Victorian Britain. Capitalism does many good things...it drives creativity...design...solutions to many things. But as we face serious global issues like never before...climate change...will those who own so much as it is in private hands....really make the discions in the interests of all...?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ssex_tomMan over a year ago

Chelmsford

If it is published and distributed widely then it will be like one one of those CDs that everybody has but never play gathering dust on a shelf.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

And yet, by magic, the average worker today - compared to when marx wrote: lives longer, has more leisure time, better health care, eats better and has more personal wealth. Such a corrupt system. But less so in the countries that put marx'd ideas into practice and more so in the ones that ignored his drivel. "
you also ..as if by magic. You can equally argue that it is not by magic..fitter healthier people are more productive. It would be nice to think that people fought for better conditions...which they did...suffragettes.. Labour movements...unions...but realistically...and equally...conditions were improved to aid production. In ww1 the troops were found to be ill..poorly educationated..knackered unhealthy...before they got to the front line. Was consideration for their condition truely made for their benefit....or because it was needed...in the effort to win a war.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

None of those things are brought about by capitalism though!

Well funny how it doesn't happen under feudalism, anarchy or communism! What do the communist countries have in common? They usually end up starving to death because they can't even produce enough food for themselves, let alone a surplus for their exploitative masters.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If it is published and distributed widely then it will be like one one of those CDs that everybody has but never play gathering dust on a shelf. "

Ahh, the 'Dire Straights' paradigm.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Best debate I have read in a long time

Well what would a swingers site be without military history debates...

A much darker place - this is history, not military history btw

And save yourself the trouble - it's unreadable drivel.

I take that back - I've just read the thread.

Some staggeringly poor ideas of recent history here :/

We await to be corrected

I is busy, innit

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The copyright on this book has officially ended today, and now it's in the public domain.

Won't be long for the English translation to hit the net. Anyone going to read it?

Is it as badly written as fifty shades?"

Fuck if it is...I won't bother!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There already is and I read it also Marx too.

Marx made some sense

None of those things are brought about by capitalism though!

It did happen, it just happened slower and to a lesser degree, communist soviets produced some of the best technological advances in aeronautics and rocket design, mathematics, there was lots of ingenuity through actual lack of resources but

Like I said capitalism has worked better than the other systems, it's why we still do it! But that doesn't mean its infallible or can't be bettered!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

Price fixing is illegal, serious fines get handed out for it and companies get broken up over it. The only times it really happens is when the state is involved in bad regulation decisions (e.g. energy) as demonstrated by the fact those problems aren't universal.

Free markets always need a regulator, it can be the state, doesn't have to be.

The other thorn in your argument is that most prices get progressively lower on a PPP basis - food, clothing, travel are all much much cheaper than in marx's time and no he didn't forecast that. The things that aren't cheaper are the things that state pisses about with - housing and energy for example.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

Free markets always need a regulator, it can be the state, doesn't have to be.

Housing is labour intensive and mostly controlled by land prices, in the last few years alone we've seen price rigging on libour,xxxx, currency, gold.... Some would argue that the state is a good regulator..

I wouldn't be one of them because you only need to look around to see where bad regulation has got us!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

Free markets always need a regulator, it can be the state, doesn't have to be.

I wouldn't be one of them because you only need to look around to see where bad regulation has got us!"

Libour isn't really a good example for you given the legal precedings that followed and gold isn't exactly a consumer staple. Housing is a buggers mess and makes me very angry. The problems include:

-Estate agents getting incentives to inflate valuations

-Schools doing admissions based on post codes

-'troubled families' that nobody wants to live by being given council houses and wrecking the entire estate with it

-Some clear instances of monopoly in the rental market that should be broken up

Frankly all those could be fixed with some simple policies and houses would magically become more affordable. Conservatives definately won't do it. Labour won't either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

Yes - it's economic theory.

One extreme is economic planning (Soviet 5 year plans etc),

Other extreme is economic liberalism ( USA was closest).

In the middle are mixed economies, of which uk used to be one. Before the ideological obsession removed most of state utilities.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Best debate I have read in a long time

Well what would a swingers site be without military history debates...

A much darker place - this is history, not military history btw

And save yourself the trouble - it's unreadable drivel.

I take that back - I've just read the thread.

Some staggeringly poor ideas of recent history here :/

We await to be corrected

I is busy, innit"

You mean you haven't got anything to back up your opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

Yes - it's economic theory.

One extreme is economic planning (Soviet 5 year plans etc),

Other extreme is economic liberalism ( USA was closest).

In the middle are mixed economies, of which uk used to be one. Before the ideological obsession removed most of state utilities.

Glorious, efficient institutions were they?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

Yes - it's economic theory.

One extreme is economic planning (Soviet 5 year plans etc),

Other extreme is economic liberalism ( USA was closest).

In the middle are mixed economies, of which uk used to be one. Before the ideological obsession removed most of state utilities.

Glorious, efficient institutions were they? "

well here's something for you to chew over.

If eg the Royal Mail, was so inefficient and loss making - why did the market snap it up?

my point was regarding ideology, whereas politics Is supposed to be about the practical.

So when we have a budget deficit, why sell something that makes a net contribution?

Royal Mail, east coast rail line etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I expect a lot of people from the white population in the southern American states might

I'm not sure the people you are talking about could read Janet and John' let alone Mein Kampf. I read bits of it years ago, and it is seriously hard going.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

Yes - it's economic theory.

One extreme is economic planning (Soviet 5 year plans etc),

Other extreme is economic liberalism ( USA was closest).

In the middle are mixed economies, of which uk used to be one. Before the ideological obsession removed most of state utilities.

Glorious, efficient institutions were they?

well here's something for you to chew over.

If eg the Royal Mail, was so inefficient and loss making - why did the market snap it up?

my point was regarding ideology, whereas politics Is supposed to be about the practical.

So when we have a budget deficit, why sell something that makes a net contribution?

Royal Mail, east coast rail line etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

Yes - it's economic theory.

One extreme is economic planning (Soviet 5 year plans etc),

Other extreme is economic liberalism ( USA was closest).

In the middle are mixed economies, of which uk used to be one. Before the ideological obsession removed most of state utilities.

Glorious, efficient institutions were they?

well here's something for you to chew over.

If eg the Royal Mail, was so inefficient and loss making - why did the market snap it up?

my point was regarding ideology, whereas politics Is supposed to be about the practical.

So when we have a budget deficit, why sell something that makes a net contribution?

Royal Mail, east coast rail line etc.

1) the market snapped it up because it was offered at a very cheap price!

2) most traders on the market are not long term investors so I wouldn't read too much into that

3) you sell it to use the proceeds to pay down the debt

4) letters are obsolete and there are no shortage of companies that deliver parcels. If Royal mail didn't deliver so much damn junk mail it would have collapsed years ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Best debate I have read in a long time

Well what would a swingers site be without military history debates...

A much darker place - this is history, not military history btw

And save yourself the trouble - it's unreadable drivel.

I take that back - I've just read the thread.

Some staggeringly poor ideas of recent history here :/

We await to be corrected

I is busy, innit

You mean you haven't got anything to back up your opinion."

No, I mean I'm busy and have better things to do than lecture fools

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

a book written by a twat

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"a book written by a twat"

for idoits

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"a book written by a twat"

Yes but was he a stupid twat is the question

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Anyone going to read it?

Nah. I always find it spoils a book once you know how it ends...

Mr ddc

Titanic was alright

Only because with the way Hollywood re-writes history, you could never really be sure it would sink until the very end...

that post should have been headed spoiler alert.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

Free markets always need a regulator, it can be the state, doesn't have to be.

I wouldn't be one of them because you only need to look around to see where bad regulation has got us!

Libour isn't really a good example for you given the legal precedings that followed and gold isn't exactly a consumer staple. Housing is a buggers mess and makes me very angry. The problems include:

-Estate agents getting incentives to inflate valuations

-Schools doing admissions based on post codes

-'troubled families' that nobody wants to live by being given council houses and wrecking the entire estate with it

-Some clear instances of monopoly in the rental market that should be broken up

Frankly all those could be fixed with some simple policies and houses would magically become more affordable. Conservatives definately won't do it. Labour won't either. "
.

Nobody can afford to reduce house prices, the banks are basically holding those assets against their debts, hell that was the whole point of inflating house prices since the 08 bank run!.

Sure you could have cheaper housing but the consequences would have been bank failure..

Now there's the exact market rig I'm describing.

Today's gamblers get to keep their ill gotten gains at the expense of tomorrows workers paying more tax, never having a chance at a mortgage... Jeez wiz don't worry the government will get into the mortgage business (what's that we were discussing about state intervention).

Marx was wrong about lots of things, but then he was writing his book in like 1850!...

What he did grasp was how human nature would rig markets in favour of the few while leaving a large precariat!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the actual debate should lie in between the percentage of state and free market and not between the state OR Free market.

To be honest most of the free market as we know today couldn't even exist without the state, the problem really lies with balance between how much leverage the market has against the state, what we're actually seeing in the last 30 years is perfectly what marx forecast... That the market would rig the demand and the supply and therefore could control pricingcorrect....it is a balance of the two...when the state...or peoples representation is weak....private companies rig markets...and behave in a way that corrupts. The balance must favour the people and parliament...strong laws. Currently busibess is free to do as it wishes....evade tax.. and so on.."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Absolutely

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Hitlers less well known follow up book is being made public next year. It's called 'Mein kampfy chair'

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Marx was wrong about lots of things, but then he was writing his book in like 1850!...

Marx was wrong about stuff that Adam Smith got right in 1776! Namely productivity and that economics doesn't have to be a zero sum game. Maybe he should have done a little less bar fighting and a bit more reading...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

Okey dokey. Ready now?

OK... to summarise:

The debate follows the lapse in the publication rights of Hitler’s 1925 smash-hit racist diatribe, Mein Kampf (My Struggle), but swiftly becomes a (false) comparison with Marx’s Das Kapital (which is a critique of capitalism in the 19th century, not a prophetic work nor an excuse for genocide), and then proceeds to wander over various Hitler-related topics.

That Hitler was a political genius unmasks something very important about the nature of politics – he wasn’t necessarily a clever man, but a charismatic conviction politician who tapped in to primal, tribal emotions found not only in the Germans but across humanity.

Ultimately, Hitler is one of the great examples of how a single individual can affect the course of human history.

Read: Sebatian Haffner, The Meaning of Hitler (1988)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

* Hitler’s drug use.

Hitler regularly consumed methamphetamine, barbiturates, amphetamine, opiates and cocaine.

It was through his ‘unorthadox’ personal doctor that der Fuhrer was introduced during the latter stages of the war to amphetamine shots. Hitler was also arguably suffering from Parkinson’s Disease at the time.

Morell kept a medical diary of the drugs, tonics, vitamins and other substances he administered to Hitler, usually by injection (up to a staggering 20 times per day) or in pill form. Most were commercial preparations, some were his own mixes.

Since a number of these compounds are considered toxic, many historians have speculated Morell inadvertently contributed to Hitler's quickly deteriorating health.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Morell

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

* How did Hitler rule Germany?

He led from the front, ie he took many state and military decisions personally by asserting the Führerprinzip ("Leader principle"). The principle relied on absolute obedience of all subordinates to their superiors; thus he viewed the government structure as a pyramid, with himself—the infallible leader—at the apex. Rank in the party was not determined by elections—positions were filled through appointment by those of higher rank, who demanded unquestioning obedience to the will of the leader. Hitler fostered distrust, competition, and infighting among his subordinates to consolidate and maximise his own power. His cabinet never met after 1938, and he discouraged his ministers from meeting independently.

Hitler dominated his country's war effort during World War II to a greater extent than any other national leader. He assumed the role of supreme commander of the armed forcesduring 1938, and subsequently made all major decisions regarding Germany's military strategy. His decision to mount a risky series of offensives against Norway, France and the Low Countries in 1940 against the advice of the military proved successful, though the diplomatic and military strategies he employed in attempts to force the United Kingdom out of the war ended in failure. Clearly the attack on Russia was a bit of a failure, as was his refusal to allow von Paulus to withdraw from Stalingrand &c &c because he believed in this silly thing called The Will.

Interestingly, at a parochial level, Nazi rule was implemented terribly easily across Germany. For instance, the SS had only 12 officers active in Bavaria - the hard work was done by neighbours ratting on each other for being Jewish/suspect/different.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

* What this meant for ordinary people

It is easy to think that all Germans were affected by the Nazis in everything they did, but in practice many were able to continue with everyday life without much change, as long as they were not among the groups that the Nazis persecuted. They may have been irritated by the propaganda and censorship that restricted what they could read in newspapers or see in cinemas or the theatre, but for some there were compensations in Strength Through Joy, in regular employment or even in lower crime rates - as one historian has said, "if nothing else, dictatorships make good police".

There was also a good deal of support for the foreign policy that sought to overturn Versailles - events like the reoccupation of the Rhineland and the Anschluss with Austria were popular, and seen as evidence that Germany was recovering from the humiliations of Versailles.

This does not suggest that Nazi Germany was a pleasant place to live - unless of course you were one of the Nazi elite. There was always an undercurrent of fear, an element of unpredictability, and for persecuted groups it was a terrible tragedy. But many ordinary people learned to put these things in the background and to get on with their lives. Only a few, however, were brave and committed enough to take their resistance beyond "grumbling" and become active opponents of the Nazis.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Marx was wrong about lots of things, but then he was writing his book in like 1850!...

Well that's how things progress, you put out your ideas people critique them, add on their own ideas...

Eisenstein stood on newtons shoulders and hawking on his!

The only difference being science sometimes produces absolutes while economics is a bit more of a guessing game through data!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

* Hitler's mental state

I cba to summarise the entirety of Hitler’s supposed mental state, as it’s soooo far clouded but have a read here... Basically, it’s mostly German psychologists trying to explain it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathography_of_Adolf_Hitler

Ultimately, pathographies are by definition works on personalities which the author believes to be mentally disturbed.

Psychiatrists deal with mental illness and usually write no specialist publications on those they consider to be mentally healthy. Exceptions occur at most within professional discourses in which individual authors confront the positions of colleagues, who, in the opinion of the former, are at fault to classify a certain personality as mentally ill.

As a result, works that advance the view that a particular personality was mentally healthy, are naturally underrepresented in the overall corpus of pathographic literature. This applies to the psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, too.

Some authors have described Hitler as a cynical manipulator or a fanatic, but denied that he was seriously mentally disturbed; among them are the British historians Ian Kershaw, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Alan Bullock, and A. J. P. Taylor, and, more recently, the German psychiatrist Manfred Lütz.

Ian Kershaw has concluded that Hitler had no major psychotic disorders and was not clinically insane.

The American psychologist Glenn D. Walterswrote in 2000: "Much of the debate about Hitler's long-term mental health is probably questionable, because even if he had suffered from significant psychiatric problems, he attained the supreme power in Germany rather in spite of these difficulties than through them."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

* Chamberlain at Munich

“Peace in our time.” Sounded a little hollow 7 years later... Chamberlain, we are told, was duped into thinking Hitler a man of reason and compromise, a man who could be trusted to keep agreements.

Even his slightly ridiculous appearance – wing collar and furled umbrella – seemed to sum up the hopeless imbalance between Britain's unpreparedness for war and the ruthless might of the Nazis.

American historian William Shirer, in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960), took the view that although Hitler was not bluffing about his intention to invade, Czechoslovakia would have been able to offer significant resistance.

Shirer believed that Britain and France had sufficient air defences to avoid serious bombing of London and Paris and would have been able to pursue a rapid and successful war against Germany.

He quotes Churchill as saying the Munich agreement meant that "Britain and France were in a much worse position compared to Hitler's Germany".

After Hitler personally inspected the Czech fortifications, he privately said to Joseph Goebbels, "we would have shed a lot of blood" and that it was fortunate that there had been no fighting.”

As a war leader, Chamberlain was surprisingly effective, but he still hated war, and lacked Churchill's oratorical power to inspire, egro he’s gone down as a ‘guilty man’.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

* Could the UK & France have beaten German before WWII?

To an extent, counterfactual.

You have to remember that a) the memory of the Great War and, more recently, the Spanish Civil War meant there was little appetite for more slaughter. Extrapolating from the Spanish Civil War, it was estimated that the first few weeks of a German air assault would bring half a million casualties: Britain was defenceless in the face of the bomber.

Of course, the calculations were way off the mark. But Chamberlain was doing what many of his critics complain he was reluctant to do – following expert advice.

In addition, he was only too aware of the unfavourable balance of power.

The enormous coalition assembled against the Kaiser's Germany could not be recreated: only France was clearly on board, and of her military capacity Chamberlain was deeply sceptical (with good reason).

The moment to stop Hitler had passed in 1936...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarization_of_the_Rhineland

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

* Who won the war?

Let’s not forget that for every German division in France, Italy, the Balkans for fighting cheery Tommies in the desert, there were 4 more on the Eastern Front.

The Russian’s took the bullet for us. No, really, they did :/

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

* The Nazi economy

My old lecturer, Richard Overy, highlights the importance of 1936 the "Four-Year Plan Memorandum" predicated an imminent all-out, apocalyptic struggle between "Judeo-Bolshevism" and German National Socialism, which necessitated a total effort at rearmament regardless of the economic costs.

The following the Memorandum:

• after the 1936 economic crisis, German industrialists were increasingly excluded from the decision-making process[57]

• after 1936, the German state came to play an increasing dominant role in the German economy both through state-owned companies and by placing increasing larger orders

• the expansion of armament-related production supported by a highly economically interventionist state led to those capitalist enterprises not related to armaments to go into decline

• the decline in effectiveness in economic lobbying groups in the Third Reich

• that though every major German industrialist called for a reduction of working class living standards from 1933 onwards, before 1942 the Nazi regime always ignored such calls, and sought instead to raise working class living standards

The war came and although the Four-Year Plan technically expired in 1940, Hermann Göring had built up a power base in the "Office of the Four-Year Plan" that effectively controlled all German economic and production matters by this point in time.

In 1942 the growing burdens of the war and the death of Fritz Todt in 1942 saw the economy move to a full war economy under the efficient leadership of Albert Speer.

Due to state control, business had little entrepreneurial freedom in a regime that has been described as "command-capitalism".

In place of ordinary profit incentives guiding the economy, financial investment was regulated as per the needs of the state.

The profit incentive for businessmen remained, but was greatly modified; Nazi agencies replaced the profit motive that automatically allocated investment, and the course of the economy. Nazi government financing eventually dominated private financial investment and heavy business taxes limited self-financing of firms.

The largest firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits, however, government control was extensive.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

I trust that has cleared up a few points

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"* Could the UK & France have beaten German before WWII?

To an extent, counterfactual.

Of course, the calculations were way off the mark. But Chamberlain was doing what many of his critics complain he was reluctant to do – following expert advice.

In addition, he was only too aware of the unfavourable balance of power.

The moment to stop Hitler had passed in 1936...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarization_of_the_Rhineland

Adam Tooze puts the date into early 1938 - the wages of destruction. It's very comprehensive and compelling...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I trust that has cleared up a few points

Well I'm not really sure what was said that offended your senses so much... I agreed with 90% of what you wrote and it didn't seem a radical departure from the debate?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"* The Nazi economy