Slashdot Mirror


'Mein Kampf' To Be Republished In Germany

Hugh Pickens writes "Jacob Heilbrunn reports in The Atlantic that Germany is taking a new step toward what is often called 'normalization' as the state of Bavaria has announced that in 2015 it will publish Hitler's Mein Kampf, banned in Germany since World War II. In announcing the publication of the book, Bavarian finance minister Markus Soeder says that he wants to contribute to the 'demystification' of it. In 2015, the Bavarian state's copyright to the book will expire and the idea is to publish a scholarly version that will help stem its appeal for commercial publishers. The book is not banned by law in Germany, but Bavaria has used ownership of the copyright to prevent publication of German editions since 1945. Copyright restrictions stop at the end of 2015, 70 years after Hitler's death. By publishing in 2015 before the expiry of the copyright, Bavaria hopes to make future German editions as 'commercially unattractive' as possible. 'We want to make clear what nonsense is in there,' says Soeder and to show 'what a worldwide catastrophe this dangerous body of thought led to.'"

30 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. The English version is good for this by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The current English edition is actually peppered with footnotes calling out every time Hitler lies or exaggerates. It's like a side by side refutation.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:The English version is good for this by Gib7 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sort of like the Skeptics Annotated Bible ?

    2. Re:The English version is good for this by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pretty much. Like any bible, Mein Kampf isn't actually meant to be read by its believers. I tried to read it because I thought it'd be good to know what Nazis were about, and in my student activist days I spent a bit of time working against neo-Nazis. IT'S TERRIBLE! It's boring, repetitious, tedious, egowank ... so yeah, it's a perfect bible. The footnoting is the only use it has. Hitler starts bullshitting from the very first page.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    3. Re:The English version is good for this by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I came here to say the same thing. Banning publication is a service to anyone who, like me, might have the misguided belief that they'd learn something by reading it. Other than that Hitler was a semi-literate drooling moron with a god complex, I mean, which can be learned from other far less painful sources.

      Why do people insist on calling him a moron? Hitler was a homicidal sociopath, a racist and a right wing fanatic but he was also an astute politician, quite intelligent and strangely enough, judging from statements by people who met him, he was also very charming. Just because somebody is a Nazi doesn't make them stupid. The French and the British made assumptions about Hitler and it turned out to be an expensive mistake. If this publication helps to dispel myths about Nazism I'm all for it. Strangely enough there is now an effort being made to pronounce the Nazis a left wing movement which is pretty funny if you know anything about the Freikorps, Anton Drexler and the rest of that ilk. Nazism was an attempt to create a right wing counterpart to communism.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    4. Re:The English version is good for this by Bromskloss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's interesting that you mention left wing, because already when you said right wing, I wondered what you meant by it. I'm often fuzzy regarding what should be called one or the other (if the terms are at all relevant outside the French revolution), so I'm collecting samples of how other people use the words. Today, I'm sampling you. :-) What do you have in mind when you call Hitler the movement right wing? (Amusingly, we're talking about the National Socialist German Workers' Party, but what's in a name?) Supporting the crown and the estates? Dismantling the state ("taxation is theft")? Encouraging capitalism? Belief in Christian ideals? Those are traits that I see as characterising the Right in one context or another. (Though I don't see them as particularly representative of the Nazis.)

      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    5. Re:The English version is good for this by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's boring, repetitious,

      Been there read that. Read it for a liberal arts survey holocaust senior year class in school... quite a while ago.

      The last two words I'd use would be boring and repititious.

      Hard to describe the plans and beliefs of the guy who pretty much ran WWII as boring. I guess if all you pay attention to is the Kardashians and fashion shoes, this wide reaching social geopolitical stuff could be a bit dull, but I found it extremely interesting.

      The repetitious stuff, again, is the readers fault. I'm sitting there reading and thinking "this is a pretty shitty WWII textbook" and realizing it was written well before WWII. Its kind of like calling 20000 leagues under the sea by Jules Verne from 1870 boring, because everyone knows the history of cold war era submarines and I've seen better modern agitprop movies and books about nuclear subs..

      Him being naughty and evil is not an excuse or justification or (good) rationalization for basically making stuff up to make his book look bad and by connection his actions. He makes himself look bad quite well all on his own, by his beliefs and actions without you making stuff up about his very interesting book.

      An example of a slightly less inflamatory subject: I'm the opposite of a bible thumper (which has the weird political effect of making me an anti-republican... they kicked me out, I didn't wanna leave...). Objectively it has some pretty decent poetry in it. Aside from the poetry I think its completely full of it, mostly false WRT anything important, and generally has been a net negative on society. If you don't like that, search and replace with any other religious text until it matches your personal dislikes. That dislike of what believers have done and disagreement with their beliefs does not mean I should make stuff up about their book being "unpoetic" in an attempt to make them look bad. They make themselves look bad very well all by themselves.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:The English version is good for this by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right wing: tending toward fascism. Left wing: tending toward socialism. Since both ideologies are dedicated to crushing personal freedom it is easy to confuse the two. It's *how* they want to crush your freedom that distinguishes them.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    7. Re:The English version is good for this by msobkow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can't agree with you that the goal of socialism is to crush personal freedom. In fact, I'd take the direct opposite stance.

      Full-on socialist policies (which some refer to as a "nanny state" because the essentials of life are provided by the government) actually free the citizenry from having to worry about the very trials and tribulations that consume the time and energy of a capitalist society: survival.

      Even fascism isn't so much about "crushing" personal freedom as it is about whipping the population into a fanatical frenzy of support for the state and it's purported mission.

      Had you said that they try to manipulate people into giving up the ideals of capitalism, I'd have agreed. But I don't see capitalism as the be-all and end-all of society. Never have, and never will.

      Primarily because I grew up in and live in a country that has had socialist leanings pretty much since the 1930's -- Canada. Having grown up in such an environment, I can see definite benefits to society from a government which generally considers the welfare of society as a whole to be more important than some ideology of freedom to rape, pillage, and rob your neighbours without restriction so long as it's profitable.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  2. You know who else... by Intropy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know who else liked to suppress books they considered dangerous or "un-German?" The Nazis.

    1. Re:You know who else... by million_monkeys · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why can't we make it through a single story without someone bringing up Nazis?

  3. Let them read it by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, you don't even need annotations. Everyone with enough brain cells to rub together will start rolling their eyes in the first chapter already.

    Hitler reinterpreted his whole life to match his ideology to such a degree it just becomes hilariously stupid to read... and boring, by the way.

    And frankly, those who lack the necessary brain power to recognize the inherent worth (or lack thereof) of the book will not be dissuaded by annotations, true as they may be.

    1. Re:Let them read it by wickerprints · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think Mel Brooks understood it best. Ridicule and parody are really the most powerful weapons we have against tyranny, hatred, violence, and terror.

      When someone or some group commits atrocities that are unbelievably horrific as a means to paralyze reason and incite fear, and when society reacts with predictable anger, disgust, and outrage, we play into their sick game, for that's precisely the response they hope for. That's what al Qaeda, Hitler, Charles Taylor, and Anders Behring Breivik all share in common. Sociopaths do what they do in order to provoke, knowing full well that no amount of justice or outrage could make up for what they've done, while their ascension in notoriety helps disseminate their cause.

      But when we LAUGH at them, when we are able to rise above the hatred they wish to foment by turning their ideals into the butt of jokes (and you gotta admit, "Springtime for Hitler" from The Producers is a masterstroke of comedic genius), that's how we win. We win by taking their manifestos and turning them into fodder for stand-up comedy. To be sure, we aren't trivializing the destruction and deaths they cause, but rather, we mock the basis for their crimes, we take their self-importance and sense of empowerment and simply brush them aside with a dismissive sneer. That's what Breivik, for instance, would hate the most--not to be judged fairly under Norwegian law, or to be jailed, or even to be executed. He himself has stated he hates the idea of being labeled "insane." And the reason is because in his view, insane = not to be taken seriously.

    2. Re:Let them read it by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      a website with straightforward rebuttals instead of just annotations in a printed copy.

      Rebuttals are known to not work against believers. Why are you bringing up a proposal for which we have ample evidence of failure?

      If rebuttals would work, there wouldn't be any christians left in the world, nor many climate-change deniers.

      but it would give those who are on the fence

      These people are always quoted, but I've yet to meet a single one. No matter if it's child porn or nazis, there is this straw man. Do you really think there is much of a fence to sit on? I think the boundary is much less defined than that, and that people aren't sitting there, wavering, undecided. I rather have an image of a grey zone that people pass through on a trajectory. Some faster, some slower, some straight and some not so straight, but very few tangentially. I don't think we really have so many people thinking "this neo-nazi thing sounds interesting, but I'm not certain, I need more information".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  4. Re:They want to de-mystify it? by Hans+Adler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not so much that Germany has done a good job about that, but the US did an excellent job of reeducating Germans after the Second World War. They treated the general population fairly and helped them survive. But they also had a reeducation scheme in which they forced groups of ordinary people to look at piles of dead bodies found at concentration camps, etc.

    The Soviet Union, in contrast, had a different scheme that did not work. Essentially it amounted to drawing as much profit from the country as possible and torturing random people. This is why nazism is very strong in the east of Germany even today, long after reunification.

    Unfortunately, the US seems to have lost the knowledge of how to deal with a conquered nation. In Iraq, for example, they behaved essentially like the Soviet Union did in East Germany.

  5. Re:Demystification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    German politicians are not interested demystifying Hitler or the Nazis, they did their best to stop any publication of old Nazi propaganda, that includes almost any scientific text about them. Even mentioning that not all Hitler did was downright evil gets you labeled as a Nazi, that Hitler needed a more or less functional country to fulfill his plans and that evil(TM) is not enough to run a world war are things that are best not mentioned. If a German politician wants to end a discussion quickly he will just mention that the Nazis did it that way.

    I would not be surprised if they use the new publication to claim that everyone else selling "Mein Kampf" or related texts violates the copyright of the new (possibly censored) edition. (IAAGVDAGP - I am a German voter demystified about German politicians).

    In contrast to many people I believe it is a crime to forget the past (especially if it is something our politicians do their best to make us forget ).

  6. Re:The State of Bavaria Holds the Copyright? by stefanb · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Federal Republic is the successor to the Weimar Republic, so the state was not "destroyed". Apparently, when an estate goes to the state, it goes to the state (Bundesland) where the deceased was last registered to live, not Germany; Hitler was registered as living in Munich. That's why it's Bavaria.

  7. Re:Demystification by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    If a German politician wants to end a discussion quickly he will just mention that the Nazis did it that way.

    That works on the internet, too.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  8. finally by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the book had been readily available, there would be fewer neo-nazis in Germany.

    I've read it (my parents own a copy, from their grandparents, as Mein Kampf was regularily given as presents at weddings, etc.). It's interesting in parts and revolting in most. It's also pretty badly written. As an author, Hitler was much worse than as a speaker.

    There was a comedian here in Germany, of turkish origin, who read from Mein Kampf for school classes and other audiences. He got attacked pretty badly, but in every discussion, he leaves his critics in the dust with his wit and intelligence. In one, he told a former MinisterprÃsident (our equivalent of american governors) that her anti-nazi initiatives had pretty much no effect whatsoever on the youth, because the young people distrust authoritarian stuff that's being forced down their throats. But his readings had a profound effect. Oh and also, the neo-nazis hated him for it, up to death threats.

    You can not resolve history by hiding it, only by discussing it.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  9. Re:Copyright.. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    The mere fact that a book written by someone nearly 70 years ago is still under copyright is ridiculous

    Count on Slashdot to turn a story about naziism into an anti-copyright rant.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  10. Re:Oh, this'll be interesting. by MacTO · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At this point in history, it is bound to be more enlightening than dangerous.

    My high school education in the subject of Nazi Germany was likely more intellectual than most because I had a teacher who was brave enough to stand up and claim that the holocaust wasn't the most important feature of the 20th century. Instead, that teacher claimed, the genocides that came afterwards should play a stronger role in history courses because they are both more contemporary (thus more relevant) and demonstrate how society needs to make a much more concerted effort to learn from the mistakes of our past.

    The publication of Mein Kampf in Germany at this stage of history is important for a couple of reasons. One is that access to primary sources will allow the general population to more directly learn what the mistakesh of Nazi Germany were. But this will only work out because we have had a handful of generations to sort out why such policies represent an unforgivable evil. Both reasons are essential, because we need both information and a temporal/emotional distance to evaluate things rationally.

    Publishing this work in this day in age isn't an apology to the Nazis. It does not represent a forgiveness due to social relativism, nor any other extremist ideology. It simply acknowledges that the only way to learn from the past is to understand the past from their perspective.

  11. Re:Demystification by benjfowler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Crazy talk. Germany is a big country and its people work hard and smart. They exercise economic leadership as a consequence; it's to be expected.

    It's an iron law of nature, is that sometimes the big kids get to tell the little kids what to do. Compared to China, I'll take Germany any way, because by and large, they innovate, play fair and work hard.

  12. Re:Demystification by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although Hitler was a human, indeed he was a monster. It is human to unfairly dislike something sometime in your life. I am sure most of us may have at one point in our past had a muttering of dislike for a particular race/religion/etc. However, what makes a monster is taking that dislike, then acting on it and killing over a million Jews and other undesirables in the clinical and orchestrated manner he and his cronies did it in.

    AS for the German people, yes they need to shoulder some of the blame for supporting him at the time, but weigh in the fact that they were at the time suffering the effects of the Allies excessive sanctions and punishments of World War 1, and the failure of the Wiemar Republic. A form of Stockholm Syndrome occurred, and they saw Hitler as a savior. It is the mark of most "popular" monsters to be able to convince their citizens to follow their madcap means. Also remember many Germans did see through Hitler and tried to fight back, and most paid with their lives (see the white rose group).

    Going back to the topic, I agree that this book should be published, so that people can see how a monster is formed, and with the disturbances currently going on in Europe and the world, maybe its a warning to prevent the same thing that happened in the past happening again. We do not know* of any monsters on the scale of Hilter since he died, but that doesn't mean we will never see one again, and maybe the next one will be worse.

    *Note i said "know of" rather than outright say that such a monster does not exist. The reason is, even in the case of Hitler, the world in general only knew how much of a monster he was AFTER he was defeated.

    --
    Have a nice day!
  13. Re:Demystification by kbg · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Hitler planned and built the Autobahn. Or did he?

    In reality, the first section of what would later become the legendary German autobahn network was constructed and built before Hitler came to power. Construction on the Köln-Bonn Autobahn began in 1929. During opening ceremonies on August 6, 1932, none other than Konrad Adenauer was on hand to inaugurate the 20 km (12 mi) section of autobahn running between Cologne and Bonn. Adenauer, then the Oberbürgermeister (mayor) of Cologne, proclaimed: "So werden die Straßen der Zukunft aussehen." ("This is how the roads of the future will look.") Adenauer supported the autobahn project partly as a way to create jobs during hard economic times. Later he would become West Germany's first Bundeskanzler (chancellor, from 1949 to 1963)."

    From: http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth08.htm

  14. Re:Demystification by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The most truly terrifying source I've read from the second world war was (a translation of excerpts from) the diary of a concentration camp guard. Simple, banal, entries about his family, the same sorts of concerns as anyone else in wartime, and the occasional entry about how many people had been 'processed' by his camp. If you'd met him, he'd probably have seemed like a friendly and reasonable person, doing a job just like any other. It just happened that his job involved working people to death. Reading statements like the recent comment by an Apple exec about how great Foxconn's ability to get people up in the middle of the night to make a change to a product design reminds me that this attitude is still alive in senior positions.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  15. Re:Copyright.. by Kidbro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The mere fact that a book written by someone nearly 70 years ago is still under copyright is ridiculous

    Count on Slashdot to turn a story about naziism into an anti-copyright rant.

    The story is a copyright story. The book hasn't been banned. The book has simply not been published, because the people sitting on the copyright refused to publish it. The reason it is now about to be published is because the copyright is finally expiring.

    How much more deserving can a story be of triggering anti-copyright rants than when copyright is explicitly and directly used to enforce censorship?

  16. German approach by hipp5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the German approach to presenting the horrors of WWII. Last Christmas I visited the Dachau concentration camp outside of Munich. All the material presented there went extremely over the top to paint the Nazis as inhuman monsters that were far distanced from any sane person. But what this totally missed is that the horror of the Holocaust was that it was completely human. The vast majority of the Nazis were everyday people like you an me, and that's what makes it mindbogglingly terrible.

    In contrast you have the Holocaust exhibit at the British Imperial War Museum. The whole first section is very clearly focused on the on the economic and political conditions that led to the rise of the Nazis. Through the propoganda and information presented in that exhibit you come to understand how otherwise normal people came to participate in, sanction, or at least turn a blind eye to, one of the worst attrocities in modern history. I believe that only by dissecting this information and understanding this "flaw" of human nature can we really prevent such terrible things from happening again. Mein Kampf should have been repuplished years ago for exactly this reason.

  17. Re:Heil by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll get hate for saying this but WTF,lets be honest, if you wanna go by sheer numbers Hitler hated Ruskies even more than Jews but if you look at the man's record pretty much anyone not Aryan that didn't think EXACTLY like him got put on his shit list. Lets see...Poles, Jews, Russian, Gypsy, gay, communists...did I leave anybody out? lets face it the guy really wasn't THAT picky when it came to killing and if you look at those throughout history that racked up huge body counts that's something they all had in common. While its true he didn't like Jews once WWII started not liking someone wasn't really a prerequisite, he slaughtered for pretty much any old reason.

    Personally I'm for printing it,not because I thought the man had any great insight, far from it and one could argue that WWII was pretty much a war with all the planning of throwing darts at a dartboard without any real thought involved on Germany's part (attacking Russia without ANY winter gear? batshit much?) but because i'm a strong believer on freedom of thought, be it the little red book or Mein Kampf or the supposed "pro pedo" book. To be frightened of words on a page is to be frightened of thought and I personally find that even more scary. If you truly fear words on a page because you think they are gonna suddenly affect large numbers of your populace? then maybe, just throwing this out there, you should teach your people to think for themselves and instead of trying to hide the words make a decent counterargument instead?

    My grandfather fought in WWII and actually liberated one of the camps in Poland, not one of the big names but it was horrifying none the less, and one of the last things he taught me was not to fear words and ideas as he actually supported the Illinois Nazis right to march, even though he had suffered so much in the war and ended it with a wall dropped on him by a Werwulf squad. He said "that's what made us different, we let people speak, even if we don't agree" and I always took those and his memories he shared of that time to heart. so when i saw some neo Nazis on a street corner in Dallas in the late 80s I didn't join the protesters shouting dirty names at them, I simply bought a large piece of posterboard and made up a sign that said "My grandfather liberated one of the camps, ask me about it" and told his story, of seeing children piled like cordwood, of seeing people so starved one couldn't tell male from female, of being told NOT to feed them because they had been starved so long rich GI rations would throw their frail bodies into shock and of watching in horror because one of the other men did exactly that because he felt pity and the person went into convulsions and died. He said that was the closest he ever got to committing war crimes as he and his men were ready to execute those Nazis on the spot until one of the prisoners told them these were just some flunky recruits brought in while the monsters snuck away and they had actually been treated well by the recruits.

    Well needless to say all those nasty names didn't phase those Nazis but what DID phase them was me. They even went so far as to actually complain to a cop standing there who snickered and said "you have the right to speak and so does he" and when they saw I wouldn't go away they packed up and left. It is ALWAYS better not to sweep such things under the rug but to fight it with the truth. By keeping it hidden and banned since the Americans left Germany has simply allowed those groups to grow when a much better solution would have been to simply fight them with the reality of the past IMHO.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  18. Re:Heil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lots of people hate the Jews for their work in international banking. But they ended up in banking, a soiled business, because in the 1200s it was forbidden to christians and muslims by their religions.

    If you're pissed about the 'dirty Jew bankers' blame your own stupid theologies for cutting you out of the action. Churches like to keep the flock poor; makes them obedient.

  19. Re:Heil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a wonderful post. But what you say at the end about Germany "...keeping it hidden and banned since Americans left Germany...' may be true in the sense that Hitler/Nazi literature/paraphernalia became banned, but the facts regarding the atrocities committed by that regime were definitely not hidden. As I went through the German school system in the '70s, I recall vividly the compulsory viewing of documentaries that went into quite graphic details on what went on in the concentration camps. I actually feel that the government went overboard in this regard - a whole generation of Germans grew up with this enormous guilt complex that, IMHO, negatively impacted Germany's subsequent role in various post-war European organizations.