'Hitler Tamed by Prison' (1924)(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
'Hitler Tamed by Prison' (1924)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/03/new-york-times-in-1924-hitler-tamed-by-prison/
129 comments
Yesterday I was in a theatre for a unique showing (at least where I live) of a documentary on greece's golden dawn party rise to power (they have 17 (18 at first) people in the parliament). Party leaders clearly stated that votes is the path to power and legitimacy. They know this and they use the argument in the rethoric: wer are nationalist, not neo-nazy or racists and people do vote for us.
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.
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.
Interesting that the article seems to state that Hitler AND Luddendorf had led the Beer Hall Putsch, as my understanding is that he sorta fell into it and was pawned.
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
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
Makes me think of similar events that played out in Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15_Incident
> Aside from the murder of the prime minister, the attempted coup d'état came to nothing, and the rebellion as a whole proved a failure. The participants took a taxi to the police headquarters and surrendered themselves to the Kempeitai without a struggle.
Did they wore clown shoes too? This seems almost to silly to be true.
Did they wore clown shoes too? This seems almost to silly to be true.
I believe you care correct about Luddendorf. That was the narrative outlined in 1924: The Year That Made Hitler, if Peter Ross Range is to be believed.
Don't believe secondary source A more because you've found secondary source B agreeing with it. To really validate a statement you need to figure out source A's primary source, e.g. a police report of the event. Then compare it to primary source of B. You may end up seeing that both A and B are actually referring to an unchecked secondary source themselves, maybe even the same.
A valid point if I was working on any academic research. Or if the history carried any relevancy beyond a curiosity. I understand the concern with secondary source, however that was specifically why I added a disclaimer stating "if that author is to believed", or something to that effect. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to explain your concern as it may help others.
Well, nobody asks you to write scientific papers if you don't want to.
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.
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.
They could both be citing different primary sources, did you ever stop to consider that? Or were you busy stuffing that strawman? Let me know when you've checked the primary source on both. Then I'll listen to your pedanticism. Until then you're being just as speculative as I am. Except, I at least cited a source and provided a disclaimer for the information I posted.
A) Yeah, they could have, true. I also could become a billionaire tomorrow at 10:31 am. But the probability is so close towards 0% that it's much smarter to not assume it.
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.
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.
How well known was Hitler in Germany at this point? He was a relative nobody in WWI, so I'm curious how he can have been a 'demi-god' just 5 years or so later.
He was an absolute nobody in WWI.
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.
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.
> painting himself as a figure who loved Germany persecuted by a government that had sold Germany to foreign powers
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.
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.
It's a pretty common narrative. And it's an easy one to exploit. Hitler used anti-semitism to make it an even more poignant narrative. Instead of a distant foreigner, the Nazis got to point at foreigners who were living amongst them: Jews. And that, in particular, was a very, very old narrative that the Jewish people had been forced to suffer many times before.
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.
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 sometimes wondered whether it is this focus on education and a religion that rewards gambling authoritarian-rule-systems that lead to continued persecution, while other not-integrating minorities where completely ignored.
Today the only country in the world that never sold anything to foreigners is North Korea, and it's not a shining model of prosperity.
That's not even true, North Korea has many exports. It exports raw materials, textiles, and garments "above board" to China and South Korea. It exports technology and weapons less legally. Drugs, counterfeit currency and pharmaceuticals, small arms, ballistic missiles, fighter jets, etc.
While I understand you are listing things in a general sort of way and may not quite mean it but I'd love to see a source that they export (or have developed manufacturing capability) for a fighter jet or jet engine
True, but the complaint is real - I guess it's the disconnect between the perspective of regular people vs. the factual state of things. Which seems to be a big issue these days.
The putch was almost succesfull and by that time Hitler was already leader of the party. Not just some guy speaker, but leader able to give commands to SA. I think that the way you describe the putch as some joke attempt you are underestimatig support Hitler had in Bavaria.
> As a best selling author, he became a celebrity.
I thought the book only became a best seller after 1933, or am I wrong?
I thought the book only became a best seller after 1933, or am I wrong?
The first mentions of Hitler in the Simplicissimus, a fairly widely read and well-regarded contemporary Munich-based journal, appear in 1922, and this picks up the following year. Since the Simplicissimus is mostly satirical in its gesture, this suggests that Hitler was already established enough to become the target of ridicule. More specifically, they are poking fun at him being seen by some as a saviour of sorts, and criticise the handling of his attempted coup by the (Bavarian) authorities.
"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)
"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)
He'd led a violent (albeit somewhat pathetic, and suppressed) attempt at a coup---that's why he was in jail. Rough comparison points in recent US history would be the domestic terrorists like McVeigh and Kaczynski, I suppose.
Those are domestic terrorists rather than that they would be attempting a coup. Exploding bombs, writing manifestos and killing random passers by are usually not good ingredients if you want to take over a government.
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.
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.
While I agree the domestic terrorists are a poor example, Hitler's coup was envisioned to be a bloody one, particularly the Beer Hall Putsch. Hitler's actual ascent to the highest position of the Weimar Republic was mostly a matter of it's instability. They had come out of WWI disgraced, Schleicher had been too busy grabbing power from Papen, Hindenberg was dying... there were a volley of power shifts until the ball was finally passed to Hitler, whereby he promptly deflated it and had Hindenberg sign the Reichstag Fire Decree before the man gave up the ghost.
The race and class politics was strictly a proxy for the only thing Hitler ever really spoke about: power by all means.
The race and class politics was strictly a proxy for the only thing Hitler ever really spoke about: power by all means.
Is there any evidence of Hitler's true, innermost intentions? Did he admit or was he even aware of his lust for power for power's own sake?
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.
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.
I don't think you can follow any one thread or theme in Hitler's decision making like you can for his lust for power.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Yes, but Obama has been out of office for 3 months, it is time to stop worrying about him.
There was a whole reddit thread about this very question:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19kkox/at_th...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19kkox/at_th...
The stronger a country's political institutions the easier it then becomes to gain power by those means rather than through violent means. Violence works best in countries that have very little structure.
He was already well known in Bavaria where putch happened and already the leader. Not known in the whole Germany yet. If anything the whole thing helped him to consolidate power within far right wing.
[deleted]
peace in our time
for our time.
I just learned this yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
I just learned this yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
Pica_soO(5)
Certainly the authors of that story put in a lot of spin and opinion that did the article a disservice- Should have stuck to the facts.
Pure "fact-based" reporting is in no way a solution.
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.
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.
If you included additional fact that the domestic radiation is not fatal, it does solve the problem.
That is the point. Simply by choosing which facts to mention and which to omit you can create an extremely biased news piece.
Omission of facts is not reporting the facts. That's the point.
Yes it is.
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.
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.
You don't need to report ALL the facts. You just need to report the pertinent ones. And the fact that domestic radiation is not fatal is pretty fucking pertinent to the passage in the OP.
Then any news piece must asymptotically approach infinite words.
Remember to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
Remember to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
Exactly. But the issue here is that you are dealing with two different mindsets. On one hand, you have the paragraph above that 'stands alone'.
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.
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.
No, that's the exact point he's making; excluding certain information and "sticking to the facts" does not guarantee articles are not misleading.
You're missing the point that journalists can stick to facts, but still thoroughly pervade a piece with their own biases and agenda.
What wasn't fact?
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
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
What is spin if not opinion expressed through facts?
What's a fact if not an opinion so firmly believed that one has to suffer a cognitive dissonance when it's countered?
Truth is not measured by the production of cognitive dissonance. "Cognitive dissonance" is not even a validated phenomena, it's just barely more than psychobabble.
Your comparison here is dangerously wrong.
Your comparison here is dangerously wrong.
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.