1
   

German film shows Hitler's tender side

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 04:51 am
A film about Hitler's tender side makes as much sense as a film about George Dumbya Bush's intellectual side!
0 Replies
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 07:08 am
Our discussion about Hitler is strongly related to Hannah Arendt's famous quote about "The Banality of Evil." It is often used to label "evil" as being commonplace, but she distinguished a difference between common and commonplace. I would really like a reaction from Merry Andrew and diawon.

From "Contemporary Philosophy:"

In a correspondence with Grafton, in 1963, Arendt distinguishes between banal and commonplace with regard to the banality of evil. Arendt says: "For me, there is a very important difference: 'commonplace' is what frequently, commonly happens, but something can be banal even if it is not common." (18) Banal does not presuppose that the evil has a commonplace in everyone. Evil can become banal even if evil itself is not trivial to anyone. Thus, banality of evil does not mean that the evil itself is trivial and common to everybody. This distinction between commonplace and banal is clear in a conference organized on her work in Toronto, in 1972, in which Arendt affirms that the notion that "there is an Eichmann in each one of us" is a complete misunderstanding. Arendt says: "...you say that I said there is an Eichmann in each one of us. Oh no! There is none in you and none in me! This doesn't mean that there are not quite a number of Eichmanns. But they look really quite different. I always hated this notion of 'Eichmann in each one of us'. This is simply not true. This would be as untrue as the opposite, that Eichmann is in nobody." (19)
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 07:35 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
A film about Hitler's tender side makes as much sense as a film about George Dumbya Bush's intellectual side!


Or GWB's intellectual and tender side...
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 07:37 am
(Although afer the pretzel incident I'm sure his throat was tender).
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 09:05 pm
My Webster's II New Reviced Dictionary defines banal as 'lacking freshness; trite.'

I don't think that anyone on this thread has said -- or implied -- that evil, the kind of evil that, say, Hitler accomplished. is 'commonplace.' If it were, Hitler wouldn't be newsworthy. But banal? Maybe so. He certainly didn't invent the concept of genocide; we have plenty of examples of this kind of behavior from the earliest recorded histpry. He certainly wasn't the despot to persecute the Jews; the Old Testament is full of accounts of Jews being persecuted for their Jewishness (not to mention the oppression during the European Middle Ages or the pogroms of Czarist Russia). So, yes, Hitler's crimes lack freshness.

But the point of the discussion was, I think, that, in spite of Hitler's twisted mind and motives, he was a human being. Surely, his entire waking hours weren't spent dreaming up new atrocities. They probably weren't spent, in toto, thinking about nothing except world conquest, either. Jack the Ripper (wheover he might have been) probably enjoyed a pint of ale at the local from time to time and might even have had some mates who thought him a splendid fellow.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 10:00 pm
Der Fuhrer was a pigheaded fool with delusions of grandeur and an aversion to liberals... or freedom for OTHERS.
Herr Hitler's most noteworthy trait was an arrogant unwavering conviction that he was DESTINED to "save the Aryan Race".
Hitler was an adherent of the Cult of the Sword... he adored "The Warrior".
Anyone who threatened to come between him and his Destiny were doomed to extermination.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 09:46 am
You don't suppose he was a control freak?

Likely the best book on Hitler's rise and how he managed it is in my libary, "Hitler: The Path to Power" by Charles Bracelen Flood. It's a detailed, you-are-there, examination of the character and personality of Der Fuhrer and how an unimposing high school dropout with a the "attributes" of hatred and speechmaking could become the leader of the German people. It's a working map of Machiavallean proporation and most people really don't understand it. The turning point still is the infamous Beer Hall Putsh in late 1923 and the book takes one right into the streets, mingling with his cohorts and vividly shows the handwriting on the wall.
0 Replies
 
seaglass
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 11:13 am
Mr. Lightwizard - who was Adolf Hitler's speechwriter?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 02:21 pm
Adolph Hitler primarilly with Goebels assistance. This is from memory -- have not looked it up in the book so if someone wants to correct me, they're likely right if they've researched it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 03:59 pm
BillyFalcon wrote:
Our discussion about Hitler is strongly related to Hannah Arendt's famous quote about "The Banality of Evil." It is often used to label "evil" as being commonplace, but she distinguished a difference between common and commonplace. I would really like a reaction from Merry Andrew and diawon.

From "Contemporary Philosophy:"

In a correspondence with Grafton, in 1963, Arendt distinguishes between banal and commonplace with regard to the banality of evil. Arendt says: "For me, there is a very important difference: 'commonplace' is what frequently, commonly happens, but something can be banal even if it is not common." (18) Banal does not presuppose that the evil has a commonplace in everyone. Evil can become banal even if evil itself is not trivial to anyone. Thus, banality of evil does not mean that the evil itself is trivial and common to everybody. This distinction between commonplace and banal is clear in a conference organized on her work in Toronto, in 1972, in which Arendt affirms that the notion that "there is an Eichmann in each one of us" is a complete misunderstanding. Arendt says: "...you say that I said there is an Eichmann in each one of us. Oh no! There is none in you and none in me! This doesn't mean that there are not quite a number of Eichmanns. But they look really quite different. I always hated this notion of 'Eichmann in each one of us'. This is simply not true. This would be as untrue as the opposite, that Eichmann is in nobody." (19)


Hmmm - I don't feel as if I have ever really understood that quote.

What I do understand from it is probably encapsulated in, I think, (not sure if I have the right fella), Eichmann - the bean counter who calmly, and with great assiduity, managed the bureaucratic side of the genocide industry - I recently saw his testimony at Nuremburg again - still proud of his efficient system - still unable to see the horror of what he had helped to achieve....there was a horrible banality to the details of the industry of horror. One also thinks of the language of war - body counts, collatoral damage - the people who describe war as though it were a chess game, with no real carnage - who can refer to Vietnam as "a bloody nose".

Also - I sort of DO think there is, in a way, an Eichmann in each of us. If there is an Eichmann, or a Hitler, in ANY of us - this means there is the potential in each of us...and do we all not stand by and allow countless atrocities to be committed in our names? For just one tiny instance, I am shocked by the number of American citizens who seem to have no idea of the atrocities backed and funded by your government - and supported by mine - (think the overturn of the elected Iranian governemnt in the fifties, Chile, the Congo etc...) - the same for Russian citizens - the people of my country...

I also, in my job, deal constantly with the torment and suffering people can impose on others - sometimes almost unspeakable torment - all in the cosy domestic sphere...and I work with the kiddies so badly abused or neglected (often quite without intent) that they are incapable of empathy and normal development. Some of these traumatized little folk will be dangerous adults....given the right circumstances, would they be Hitlers?

All this makes me well aware of my good fortune in the lottery of life.

I am rambling...
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 04:07 pm
You're far into the outback by now and I just put some shrimps on the barbie.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2004 04:08 pm
During one of my further trainings, we started a self-awareness group about the "black site" in us.

I certainly got a bigger win in that lottery, too, you got fortunes from, dlowan. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 11:38 am
I think dlowan is right about how Eichmann was presented in Arendt's book, which I read not too long ago. Eichmann was banal--some sort of bureaucrat who job it was to facilitate the systematic deaths of many, many people. He wasn't exceptional in any way, hence banal.

This doesn't excuse Eichmann, but I think it helps explain how these atrocities happen. Not everyone is a Hiter, some are Eichmanns, too.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 11:52 am
there was a tender side of Hitler I am happy to report on.....that would be the tenderized side of his head the final bullet exited through......
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2004 12:16 pm
That's rich - Laughing
0 Replies
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 07:34 am
Hitler: tender side
Let me pursue the idea that there is "a little bit of Eichman in all of us."
The subject exists because of Arendt's use of the phrase "the banality of evil." It was popularized to mean the reference to Eichman. But Arendt took strong exception to that interpretation. She said it was a complete misunderstanding.

" . . . . .in 1972, in which Arendt affirms that the notion that "there is an Eichmann in each one of us" is a complete misunderstanding. Arendt says: "...you say that I said there is an Eichmann in each one of us. Oh no! There is none in you and none in me! This doesn't mean that there are not quite a number of Eichmanns. But they look really quite different. I always hated this notion of 'Eichmann in each one of us'. This is simply not true. This would be as untrue as the opposite, that Eichmann is in nobody." (19)

I think the notion that "there is an Eichman in each one of us" is a comforting thought because it reduces the need to explain monstrous bahavior. How could they do that? Well, actually, it wasn't easy. The early killing of Jews was done by rounding them up, marching them to the outskirts and shooting them. Anyone who witnessed the shootings had to participate in the killings. That way no one could talk about "you should see what I saw them do." Later, in order to run the death camps, the Nazis had to us intense propaganda and brainwashing to inculcate the idea that Jews were not human.

There is another aspect to all of this. If there is a "little bit of Eichman in all of us" then how do we explain the thousands of Germans who opposed Hitler, hid Jews, etc., and paid for it with their lives. Is there a little bit of martydom in all of us?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 07:58 am
Well said, Boss--my respect for your cogently presented viewpoint . . .
0 Replies
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 08:09 am
magus: Hitler was, indeed, enamored of the Cult of the Sword. He and his cabal were devotees of mysticism.
They believed in reincarnation. Goebels, who had been a chicken farmer, thought he was a reincarnation of Henry the Fowler. The swastica symbol, I believe, came from India.


Lightwizard: Thanks for the tip on the book "Hitler: The Path to Power." I will get it and read it.

Let me introduce you to what I believe is the definitive book on Nazism "Anatomy of the SS State." The following is a summary from the foreward in the book.

The book says there are two predominant views of the Third Reich.

The first view sums it up with the word Auschwitz and does not go beyond the stark fact that it happened. The question of how and why it occurred is answerd with generalized moral and cultural philosophizing. But it doesn't deal with the intellectual and political bakcground.

The second view sees the events as the crimes of a misguided body of men who had no place in the mainstream of the period.

Both views lack insight and fail to see the connection between the form of political tyranny adopted and the mass crime called for by its ideology.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 08:14 am
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/a/swastikahistory_p.htm

Quote:
The History of the Swastika
From Jennifer Rosenberg,Your Guide to 20th Century History.

The swastika is an extremely powerful symbol. Though the Nazis used it to murder millions of people, for centuries it had positive meanings. What is the history of the swastika? Does it now represent good or evil?

The Oldest Known Symbol

The swastika is an ancient symbol that has been used for over 3,000 years. (That even predates the ancient Egyptian symbol, the Ankh!) Artifacts such as pottery and coins from ancient Troy show that the swastika was a commonly used symbol as far back as 1000 BCE.

During the following thousand years, the image of the swastika was used by many cultures around the world, including in China, Japan, India, and southern Europe. By the Middle Ages, the swastika was a well known, if not commonly used, symbol but was called by many different names:

China - wan
England - fylfot
Germany - Hakenkreuz
Greece - tetraskelion and gammadion
India - swastika
Though it is not known for exactly how long, Native Americans also have long used the symbol of the swastika.
The Original Meaning

The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" meaning "good," "asti" meaning "to be," and "ka" as a suffix.

Until the Nazis used this symbol, the swastika was used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck.

Even in the early twentieth century, the swastika was still a symbol with positive connotations. For instance, the swastika was a common decoration that often adorned cigarette cases, postcards, coins, and buildings. During World War I, the swastika could even be found on the shoulder patches of the American 45th Division and on the Finnish air force until after World War II.

A Change in Meaning

In the 1800s, countries around Germany were growing much larger, forming empires; yet Germany was not a unified country until 1871. To counter the feeling of vulnerability and the stigma of youth, German nationalists in the mid-nineteenth century began to use the swastika, because it had ancient Aryan/Indian origins, to represent a long Germanic/Aryan history.

By the end of the nineteenth century, the swastika could be found on nationalist German volkisch periodicals and was the official emblem of the German Gymnasts' League.

In the beginning of the twentieth century, the swastika was a common symbol of German nationalism and could be found in a multitude of places such as the emblem for the Wandervogel, a German youth movement; on Joerg Lanz von Liebenfels' antisemitic periodical Ostara; on various Freikorps units; and as an emblem of the Thule Society.

Hitler and the Nazis

In 1920, Adolf Hitler decided that the Nazi Party needed its own insignia and flag. For Hitler, the new flag had to be "a symbol of our own struggle" as well as "highly effective as a poster." (Mein Kampf, pg. 495)

On August 7, 1920, at the Salzburg Congress, this flag became the official emblem of the Nazi Party.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler described the Nazis' new flag: "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic." (pg. 496-497)

Because of the Nazis' flag, the swastika soon became a symbol of hate, antisemitism, violence, death, and murder. What Does the Swastika Mean Now?

There is a great debate as to what the swastika means now. For 3,000 years, the swastika meant life and good luck. But because of the Nazis, it has also taken on a meaning of death and hate.

These conflicting meanings are causing problems in today's society. For Buddhists and Hindus, the swastika is a very religious symbol that is commonly used. Chirag Badlani shares a story about one time when he went to make some photocopies of some Hindu Gods for his temple. While standing in line to pay for the photocopies, some people behind him in line noticed that one of the pictures had a swastika. They called him a Nazi.

Unfortunately, the Nazis were so effective at their use of the swastika emblem, that many do not even know any other meaning for the swastika. Can there be two completely opposite meanings for one symbol?

In ancient times, the direction of the swastika was interchangeable as can be seen on an ancient Chinese silk drawing.

Some cultures in the past had differentiated between the clockwise swastika and the counter-clockwise sauvastika. In these cultures the swastika symbolized health and life while the sauvastika took on a mystical meaning of bad-luck or misfortune.

But since the Nazis use of the swastika, some people are trying to differentiate the two meanings of the swastika by varying its direction - trying to make the clockwise, Nazi version of the swastika mean hate and death while the counter-clockwise version would hold the ancient meaning of the symbol, life and good-luck.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 08:36 am
Well I think its rather nice. Hitler has had a terrible press recently.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 01:48:46