'Hitler Tamed by Prison' (1924)
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
After his release he decided to focus instead on gaining power through the political system, an effort that was ultimately successful.
So prison "tamed" him in that sense, but of course it did nothing to reduce his political ambitions. If anything the opposite appears to be true - he wrote "Mein Kampf" in prison, which laid out his vision for what the German state should look like, including such details as gaining "lebensraum" - more living space for the Germans in the East.
The fact they are neonazis... I don't see the connection with grabing power through elections (I mean, it's not a neonazy strategy... any parties can do that). But they read mein kampf. But again, I don't know how it plays out in their violence and their conceptions of the state. And yet the parrallels ar striking.
While Luddendorf was certainly in agreement of Hitler's rhetoric re: restoring Germany's former military might, my understanding was that Luddendorf's role in the Beer Hall Putsch consisted of Hitler waving a gun at him, putting him in another room when he refused to join his movement, and announcing to the audience gathered at the Beer Hall that he Luddendorf had agreed to lead the rebellion.
Luddendorf then agreed to it when he saw the support, and the following day when shooting broke out at a police standoff with some couple thousand Nazi's, Luddendorf strode through the volley of bullets to the police line where he surrendered himself promptly.
Or atleast that was the narrative that was presented to me in William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
It still amazes me today how anyone could walk away from such an incredibly embarrassing failure as the Beer Hall Putsch, but it seems to have been something of an acceptable occurrence at the time. I mean, Hitler often spoke as death as the only alternative to him achieving his revolution, but ran off after the first shot was fired to his country home!
Hitler was even received well when he was tried, and given a very lenient sentence. I guess for Germany coming out of WWI, violence was a far more acceptable and commonplace thing than it is in my world
However, don't believe the story about Luddendorf is correct, just because you've read it in another secondary source. The level of doubt about the first mention should stay exactly the same as long as nobody has done some background checking.
B) Strawmans are awesome. Don't dare to criticise my strawman. I'm an artist!
C) Yes, adding more reading material is always nice, and none of my comments was supposed to discredit that. Thanks for adding it.
D) Still, don't increase your hopes because you've read another secondary source.
Did they wore clown shoes too? This seems almost to silly to be true.
If anything Hitler was - like some present day politicians - an absolute master at identifying frustration in various strata of society and harnessing that frustration to propel himself to power.
The race and class politics was strictly a proxy for the only thing Hitler ever really spoke about: power by all means.
I know it's often a mix of both with demagogues, but I wonder how much he saw the fight against supposed enemies (Jews, Communists, Slavs) as a virtuous and net-positive goal vs. a means to an end.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19kkox/at_th...
For example, he found himself in the National Socialist party for nearly no other reason than they welcomed him for his charisma and he saw a weak leadership he could exploit.
The exposed nationalist & socialist ideologies, economic principles & race discrimination were things he quickly pushed aside time and time again when he felt they didn't align with power gain.
Some things like socialist and economic principles were ignored more often than nationalism and race discrimination which centralised his power.
I don't think anyone could ever accuse Hitler of being an ideologue or zealot for any cause other than his personal interest.
Then again, listening to half of an audiobook on the matter isn't really the same thing as living or properly studying it, so kindly tell me what's what if you're in a better position to speculate.
It's incredible with what precision some of these sentences can be transplanted nearly a hundred years and be just as applicable. You wouldn't know if this was about the past or the present when taking that sentence out of context.
After WWI, the political situation in Germany was pretty volatile. Lots of extreme politics. Hitler started giving talks about German politics and how Jews were to blame for everything. At this point, his only income was a soldier's pension iirc.
He was the 55th person to join the Nazi party (he later forged his membership card to say he was #7). But the Nazi leadership (more organizers at that point) were impressed with Hitler's speaking abilities and thought they could use him to promote the party. So they started setting him up at different venues and events.
He developed a reputation for being a guy with strong opinions about politics and his speeches were pretty entertaining for people, so more showed up. All of this was pretty local to Munich at this point.
Eventually Hitler and some of his friends got this idea that they could overthrow the government, hence the Beer Hall Putsch. He wasn't really famous at the time, but he was a popular figure in certain circles, so when the Putsch failed, he was sent to prison instead of being executed for treason.
In prison he wrote Mein Kampf, essentially painting himself as a figure who loved Germany persecuted by a government that had sold Germany to foreign powers. As a best selling author, he became a celebrity.
Ian Kershaw's Hitler Hubris and Nemesis is really good if you're interested in the topic.
I wonder just how popular the "sold homeland to foreign powers" narrative was throughout history. Kind of reminds me of the sentiment some of the people I know have towards the situation in Poland - the narrative is that all our industry was sold off to foreigners and that the government should reverse this process to bolster the economy.
One of the most interesting classes I took as an undergrad was a history course that focused on the challenges that faced Jews during and after the diaspora, and how they met those challenges while somehow managing to preserve their culture, faith, and a shared sense of identity over the course of--literally--millennia as a minority group inside other cultures and empires. Maristella Botticini's The Chosen Few: How Education Shaped Jewish History, 70-1492 is one of a few rather fascinating books on the subject.
I thought the book only became a best seller after 1933, or am I wrong?
"Was quasseln denn die Krittler\\vom bayerischen "Schorf"?\\ Hier gibt es keinen Hitler\\und keinen Ludendorff.
Was unken denn die Käuze\\vom Monarchistenputsch?\\Kein Mensch malt Hakenkreuze.\\Was futsch ist, gilt für futsch.
Ihr hört die Konstatierung\\nur zweifelnden Gesich's?\\So fragt halt die Regierung:\\die weiß von allem nichts.
Fragt nur den Herrn von Knilling,\\der wiederum Minist-\\er und sein eigner Zwilling\\von anno achtzehn ist."
(cf. Ratatöskr: Zur Beruhigung, in: Simplicissimus, vol. 27, München: Simplicissimus-Verlag, 1922--1923, p. 500)
I just learned this yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
For example, take the following paragraph; "The Fukushima Daiichi reactors suffered a disaster in 2011, causing dangerous radiation leakage. Even six years later, radiation levels are high enough to be instantly fatal. Even brief exposure can cause genetic damage leading to cancer. The radioactive dust from the disaster has been carried eastward, and has been detected throughout the United States. This radioactive dust has likely been deposited in millions of houses across the country. However, the United States has no plans to initiate a domestic cleanup."
There are only facts in that paragraph, but it paints a very misleading picture of a domestic emergency that simply doesn't exist (the domestic radiation levels are so low as to be harmless to humans). Pure "fact" reporting doesn't solve this problem.
How the hell do you report ALL the facts in any scenario?
Any publication in existance will have to pick and choose what to report in order to keep a article to a manageable level.
Do you think Scientific Abstracts are all factually correct? Hell no. There is actually a very well known issue with scientific experiments and articles where scientists will simply repeat experiments until they get a result that is within acceptable p-values and simply submit an article on that one experiment, ignoring every single time it was wrong.
Remember to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
But that has no bearing on the truth. It's omitting key facts to be true, and creating a social situation like 'reacting to a non-existent threat'.
So to me and you, ridiculous paragraphs like those above are In Error, because they are Unfinished and Missing Info. But to others, they point to the paragraph above as some kind of 'sole entity' that exists on it's own.
No one cares about a paragraph that omits critical facts to portray the reality of the situation. But apparently, on the Internet, some do.
Chuck that incomplete paragraph in the trash and try again, that's my response to their nonsensical verbal antics.
True the headline not, but the rest seemed factual.
Spin perhaps was high, but it wasn't opinion. They seem to have been careful and specifically only stated facts. "He looked", "it's believed" etc
Your comparison here is dangerously wrong.