Providing context is good, but frankly also really difficult and why not just provide newer childrens books that are more inclusive.
It's important to remember that the power of Mein Kampf lies in its status as a symbol, not its actual contents. Nobody actually reads Mein Kampf, nor have they ever (just like nobody actually reads the Bible unless they're actual preachers). It was (and still is) about the personality cult of a strong man and his message of power via blaming and oppression of minority groups, not the actual words themselves. People remember only simple things, and like simple reasoning and solutions, which is what made him popular in the first place.
So the banning of this book was an attack on the symbol (and only incidentally on the literature), and the banning of the symbol is of questionable value since it basically causes a Streisand effect. Banning a symbol only adds to its power. It might have been better to just ignore it, and instead focus on prosecuting the actual hate crimes themselves.
I was engaging in hyperbole to illustrate a point, not making an absolute statement.
Why do you think my comment is elitist?
There were different reactions to WWII. The most helpful one is "Never again." That, in turn, leads to understanding WWII. That, in turn, leads to reading books like Mein Kampf.
A lot of people read Mein Kampf, and I believe more than use it as symbol. Understanding how one man was able to do what he did is key to making sure you're not influenced the same way.
I'm firmly of the belief America is starting to head the same (very general) way; the polarization is extreme. I'm curious whether this is internal or external.
Yeah, that’s had no effect. See Rwanda, Burma, Xinjiang, Libya. Humanitarian intervention is a cloak for power, not something that happens when Great Power interests are at stake.
The lesson taught in a lot of cultures hit hardest by Germany is understanding:
* Personality cults
* Hate
* Polarization
... and the path by which Hitler came to power. Understanding what Hitler said and why it persuaded people is central to not being persuaded yourself.
If you're young, think of it as a 1945 version of social media misinformation literacy. Part of the way you learn to recognize misinformation is by looking and decomposing misinformation.
It's done pretty well for limiting the rise of charismatic hate-mongers for a pretty long while. We're now starting to see the rise again as the majority of voters are starting to view WWII as irrelevant history long gone, as opposed to something that happened to Mom and Dad.
The "people" part is just the standard evolutionary psychology that affects all of us. We have to take mental shortcuts because otherwise we'd expend too much energy thinking through everything. So we stick to simple explanations for most things in our lives without even thinking about it, especially when it comes from a source we trust. Propagandists have taken advantage of this vulnerability for generations, and will continue to do so for many more since our only defence is the few who actually DO devote much energy to examining all messages from the leadership (and we rarely listen to them). For the rest of us, simple reasons and explanations will have to do in our busy lives.
I did a study when I was younger of "readers" of the Bible, and found that, although many people will say that they read it, very few had enough knowledge to make that statement believable (Even on simple questions like "Who baptised who when Jesus met with John the Baptist, and why?" or "Why was Jesus so down on the Pharisees?" - many couldn't even tell me how many gospels there are!). So I find readership statements suspect, and stick to my original assessment that people rarely read the iconic works of the world, but rather rely upon what "everyone knows" about them.
Yes that's clear. I was put off by the "people" comment, and separately by the "hyperbole" (which I still think are just wrong statements but it is fine if we disagree).
> I did a study when I was younger of "readers" of the Bible, and found that, although many people will say that they read it, very few had enough knowledge to make that statement believable (Even on simple questions like "Who baptised who when Jesus met with John the Baptist, and why?" or "Why was Jesus so down on the Pharisees?" - many couldn't even tell me how many gospels there are!). So I find readership statements suspect, and stick to my original assessment that people rarely read the iconic works of the world, but rather rely upon what "everyone knows" about them.
Fair enough, I suppose. Another point of view: https://www.statista.com/statistics/299433/bible-readership-....
I'm an ardent atheist, but I do actually read the bible from time to time. I enjoy to read the three gospels, and spot the differences between them. I also enjoy some songs in the psalms. Most of the rest is quite annoying, but I enjoyed Crumb's illustration of the first book of Genesis.
As you dive deeper into Nazi era history a lot is based around the question who knew what, how plausible the denial of that person or this organisation was. Seeing the publicly distributed book that may or may not contain specific details regarding plans for war or "The Jewish Question" for yourself is an excellent starting point, no? I agree with other commenters here that the read was not particularly good, but definitely insightful.
I actually do not agree that banning symbols is bad: Especially the Nazis really had a hand for designing good looking stuff, and that will bleed into pop culture if you don't stop it, unconsciously associating the Nazis with "cool". Just look at the Hydra organisation in the Captain America Movies or Japanese Anime, where using Nazi design language was obviously not taboo. Of course, as you said, banning a symbol does not eradicate it, but it does not have to to have positive effect.
I did read a bit from the Koran for a while, just I was interested about what's in it (and why so many people die because of this book) even I don't believe in any god at all.
The Bible is the single most influential work of literature in the history of human civilization. Comparing it to a "personality cult of a strong man" and Mein Kampf is perhaps the most uninformed comment I have ever read on this website.
I find the comparison apt: Both are iconic texts, both have international historical and present influence, and both are rarely actually read, despite people feeling confident about their contents.
Compare that to Mein Kampf, which is a rambling book by a dictator that was only "relevant" in the world for about 25 years. Even then, people didn't really read it. It certainly had zero influence on Nazi legal codes or culture. It was more like the political books that come out today: written mostly to make some money and get one's ideas into the public sphere. Not as a holy document.
As I said, your comment is just deeply, deeply uninformed.
I'm just pointing out why your comment is misinformed. I don't consider that to be "picking a fight."
I'm also not a Christian, so it has nothing to do with being offended, unless the abuse of basic historical facts is something one can be offended about.
That's precisely why people should read it. That personality cult developed because Hitler's narrative of oppresion by Jews resonated so strongly.
> just like nobody actually reads the Bible unless they're actual preachers
Nonsense. Christians not only read it, but study it as a guide to life. There was an informal thing at my work where they'd read and discuss a passage every week or so.
It is an almost unreadable piece of shit. But, I have no doubt that some people will still read it. I doubt that it would turn 'normal people' into fascists, but 'normal people after falling into a youtube-video rabbit hole with right wing content', I guess suddenly it might be appealing.
Banning the symbols is effective in Germany, the same goes for the swastika. By banning this symbol, the society makes clear that the symbol and what it represents is not desired and not mainstream.
For me, the original "Mein Kampf" was a rather boring book to read. Since 2016, it is possible to buy a commented version of this book. It's available with the ISBN 9783981405231 for 59 € in Germany.
Though, really, why not just read the text through tor?
The book has this kind-of-mystic aura of a "rebellious, banned book too dangerous for people to read" but it's really just a complete trash and should be forgotten (outside of historian scholars who may have to read it, but I feel sorry for them).
Sounds a lot like Facebook.
Are you comfortable with an unpaid 20-something intern doing the deciding for you? Because, for example, that's who staffs a lot of 'fact checking' sites that Facebook then uses to keep content from you.
How about a fundamentalist Christian making those decisions for you?
>and some skindheads wanted to buy it, it wasn't available. They went away.
They went away eh? I take it Neo-nazism has been solved in Germany? And how, prey tell, did they become skinheads without reading the book?
>why not just provide newer childrens books that are more inclusive.
Who says these books weren't inclusive? They were read by hundreds of millions of children over the decades and translated into many languages. Show me the harm.
It's also distasteful that people who have read and enjoyed these books are now willing to deprive future generations of children from the same enjoyment ... even when it clearly did not hurt them.
As a counter-datapoint I grew up in a country that effectively banned religion. One could go to prison for selling a Bible -- subversive literature, yada yada. It worked for a while, but you cannot completely cut the flow of information from the world outside; so sooner or later people who did not have a strong opinion either way see such bans as unquestionably evil. And very soon after that the majority believes that the main reason for such bans is the inability to argue against the banned literature on merits.
I suspect that instead of letting the subject fade into obscurity such bans often provide the best advertising the topic can get. My 2c.
But back in the day if you really wanted to read it you would mail-order it from abroad.
If you came away enlightened, you probably already held very strong Nazi tendencies before you even opened the book.
Some people pay attention to the things said by those they aim to control, and then feed that back to them. I could literally feel it tugging at my brain. It was one of the most visceral “I’m dodging a bullet right now” feelings I’ve ever had.
Critical thinking is a critical skill!
Also on the point of gangs, there’s a documentary that shines a great light on how people fall into it, and on the other side of the coin, parts of law enforcement: The House I Live In.
Do you think the skinheads then went on to join a moderate left party because they could actually read their party program?
At the point where you are already committed to an ideology to the point you drastically alter your appearance, you are hardly going to be deterred by a slightly harder to get book.
On the other hand, I don't see how anyone is going to turn Nazis by reading Mein Kampf. The book is hardly relevant today and a mediocre read at best, so the only ones that will make it to the end are academics, people seeking context or people that are already committed to Nazism anyway.
I replied to a comment that said that all book-bans would be evaluated to be harmful/net-negative in retrospect. I don't think that this general statement is true and brought up the ban of Mein Kampf as a counterexample. As simple as that.
Not as such. Rather, the owner of the copyright - the state of Bavaria, where Hitler had his formal residence - decided not to allow reprints. The copyright expired in 2016, and a new, commented edition has been published which Germans can freely buy for 60€ in bookstores of their choice, including Amazon.
However, distribution for reasons other than educational purposes is potentially 'Volksverhetzung' and hence can be illegal depending on circumstances. But again, this is not a blanket ban on sale (except in case of minors as it's considered 'harmful to young persons'). This had already been tested in court in 1979, when the Bundesgerichtshof ruled you could legally own and sell historical copies of the book.
Also, do you think that skinhead became a better person by not being able to buy that book? I don't think so.
Something for the parent comment: I also don't like the downvote hype here when you say anything pro-censorship. We get it already, let people discuss without making them #eee.
Who knows how harmful Mein Kampf publishing in Germany could have been from 1950-2000, but surely, there was no harm in having it banned.
You must understand that in post-war Germany the threat of fascism still lingered, with successor-parties to Adolph Hitler's NSDAP even managing to get parliament seats in the first parliamentary elections, etc.
Funnilly enough, I think a main driver for AfDs formation as an neoliberal-turned-alt-right party are the books by Tilo Sarrazin and their public discussion in the both-sides style (often blatantly ignoring the core racist message correlating genetics to intellect, etc.).
In that respect, I think one can make an argument that certain "cancelling" (refusal to publish/discuss/sell a book by private persons or companies/platforms) that is not censorship (prohibiting a book by the state) surely is something a society must be willing to perform in order to at least not foster certain ideas within the group of people among them, that is susceptible to fascism.