Mein Kampf

[I had actually written this back in 2006, but as one of my earliest blogs on a prior site it did not make the transition to Blogger, the current site.   In its prior format I also reviewed Paulo Coelho’s book The Alchemist, which I’ll leave aside for now.  Both were dull books which I only finished by sheer determination.]

I started this in junior high, picked it up sometime in college (and got no further) and finally picked it up a third time years out of law school and finally finished it.  The problem is that the first half of the book is autobiographical and extremely dull.  The second half is where it starts to finally get interesting.  As most German speakers & writers are dense and verbose, and Hitler is no exception, I naturally had to read an English translation.

Mind you, Hitler held no political office before taking power in 1933 and had little in the way of education in 1914 before joining the Imperial German Army.  Reading his own words, you get the benefit of a one-sided conversation with Hitler himself (though most accounts indicate that his tendency was to dominate conversations anyway and not pay much attention to what anyone was trying to tell him).  

My own politics, restated yet again, are libertarian, and thus I have no inherent sympathy for national socialism, per se, or any doctrine advocating a totalitarian dictatorship.   By the time I read it completely I had developed my sympathies for libertarianism and read Atlas Shrugged multiple times.  The symbolism of Nazism, its swastikas, sigrunes and totenkopfs, are all well and fine, but fall well short of the critical mass necessary to convince anyone to actually embrace the ideology itself.

Having said all that, how would I summarize Mein Kampf, for those of us unlikely to elicit anywhere near the excessive patience required to digest the whole damn thing? Aside from hating Jews and France, did he have anything else of interest to say?

Actually, yes…

1.         Hitler loved England and had phenomenal admiration for Great Britain.  Britain, as a sea power with its Royal Navy and farflung overseas empire, was not necessarily at odds with Germany.  He actually criticized the Kaiser for trying to compete with Britain on the seas and with colonies abroad, a strategy which turned out poorly during WWI; did Germany truly derive any benefit from its empire? Discuss.  Hitler’s peace offering to Churchill in June 1940 was likely sincere, especially since he had that quest for lebensraum in the East to pursue and could use a few more divisions in that direction instead of guarding against an Allied invasion of Europe.

2.         Of course, Hitler hated France.  As a land power, France was a threat and a competitor to Germany in Europe.  Moreover, the French could at least be proud of Napoleon and his brief empire.   There would be no chance of peace with France if Hitler was running things.  And as we well know, Hitler defeated France and took that brief tour of Paris. 

3.         Growing up in Austria-Hungary, and in Vienna in particular, Hitler witnessed firsthand the chaos of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and its parliament, hopelessly deadlocked with a multitude of different nationalities speaking different languages and at cross purposes.  Mind you, our own Founding Fathers felt that such an environment would prevent “tyranny of the majority” as no one group could dominate the rest.   Of course, Hitler had no background in US history, nor did he read any Marxist literature.   I guess his time in prison was spent dictating to Rudolf Hess instead of reading anything useful besides the newspaper.  If he had little patience to listen to anyone besides himself, what chance was there that he would have the patience to read what anyone else had to argue – especially anything resembling an opposing viewpoint.  He certainly wasn’t about to read the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers or anything by an advocate of democracy and freedom.

4.         The flip side of this is that Hitler was convinced that the arduous process of taking power would ensure, in a Darwinian sense, that only the best and fittest would succeed at becoming dictator.   By that time (1924-25) Mussolini was in power in Italy, but Stalin had yet to consolidate power in Russia after Lenin’s death in 1924.  No bad dictators?  Enlightened despots?  We’ll see, won’t we?

5.         Hitler also predicted that the US would eclipse Great Britain as a world power.   Certainly true, and so far as I can tell, very much ahead of the curve in making this prediction.  And with the US successfully taking on Nazi Germany in France, Belgium, and Germany itself, AND island hopping through the Pacific against the Japanese at the same time, and finally building not one, but TWO atomic bombs AND successfully dropping them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, surely the US proved him right on this issue – to his detriment and at his expense, along with Japan’s. 

As noted in my prior blog on Trump, I don’t know any Nazis personally, nor am I aware of anyone who read this book and emerged as a Nazi as a result.  He certainly didn’t persuade me, either of national socialism or of anti-semitism, which strikes me as gratuitous hate for its own sake.  For that matter, I never bothered to even attempt to read Das Kapital, and on that side of the spectrum, the Communist Manifesto is succinct enough for its stated purpose.   Atlas Shrugged, as long, verbose, and overindulgent as it may have been, did succeed at converting me to the libertarian cause.  My understanding is that Mein Kampf was liberally distributed in Nazi Germany but few bothered to actually read it. 

Anyhow.  There you go, the most interesting parts of this dull book condensed for the rest of us.  You’re welcome.  :D

Heil Trump?

Bill Maher put it well:  the trouble with branding the Guy You Hate (or in HRC’s case, Madame Mao) as “Hitler” is that when someone who does actually resemble Hitler comes around, no one believes you.  But how dangerous IS the Mango Mussolini? 

I’ll agree that in terms of his pompous personality, he shares a lot in common with Hitler and Mussolini.  Trump considers himself a leader, a man who “get things done”, and who doesn’t tolerate dissent, opposition, or any form of disagreement.  He doesn’t take advice well and only trusts his own judgment.  He’s intoxicated with his own persona.  Of course he’s arrogant and strong-willed.  In the face of facts to the contrary he simply repeats his assertions bluntly and expects to be believed no matter what he says.  Trump is very much a megalomaniac. 

I believe it’s pertinent to raise certain issues concerning major differences between Trump and Hitler.  Hearing Trump speak on any political issue, it’s clear from the consistency of his inconsistency that he has a very poor grasp of political topics.  Reading from a speech (e.g. last night) is one thing:  responding to questions from reporters and commenting off the cuff is another.  Someone put together a montage of Ron Paul from 1980 to the recent past, and he was extremely consistent.  Most politicians who have a clearly defined ideology are.  In Hitler’s case, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP, better known as the Nazi Party) in fact articulated its platform in 1920 with its 25 Points.  I’ve read Mein Kampf (in English, after many false starts, years ago).  As wrong as Hitler’s politics may have been, at least he grasped them.  Trump is all over the place.  It seems that he cannot grasp politics.  Why is he President??

Other differences are in past and lifestyle.  Trump inherited millions; Hitler was homeless in Vienna before the war.  Trump married three times and has several children; Hitler had a mistress, Eva Braun, and no children with her.  Trump is brazen in his nepotism; Hitler threatened to draft his nephew, and gave his extended family no favors whatsoever.  But these issues pale in comparison to the difference in political acumen between the two. 

However, having said all that, Trump is President and not dictator – at least, not yet.  How dangerous is he?

Emergency Powers.  Trump’s arrogance and cluelessness aside, what made Hitler dangerous was gaining emergency powers in March 1933 after the Reichtag Fire.  This let him suspend habeas corpus, round up all his political enemies, and throw them into freshly-built Dachau.   By the time Hindenburg died in 1934, there was no one to stop AH from merging the positions of chancellor and president together.  And it all went downhill until the Red Army took care of things in Berlin in April 1945.

Here?  Good luck with that.  If a bunch of clowns set Congress on fire, that body would NOT simply vote for emergency powers to Trump.  Never mind Rand Paul, none of the Democrats and almost none of the Republicans (if not none) would approve that.  So the very issue which gave Hitler his dictatorship is a non-starter here.

Absent that, what can he do?  He can’t replace the Supreme Court, and the sole replacement he’s picked (Neil Gorsuch) actually looks sane.  The US Circuit Courts of Appeals appear immune to his charms, as do the lower US District Courts – judges cannot be told “You’re fired!”   Congress isn’t rubber stamping his edicts, and those 535 cannot be summarily dismissed by him.  Congress, not the President, passes laws.  Even in the Executive Branch, something like 70% is immune to political change, as was designed back in the early twentieth century (thanks, Teddy Roosevelt) for the express purpose of insulating the federal bureaucracy from a tyrannical president; they had the recent memory of the “spoils system” from the late 1800s to persuade them to make the bureaucracy more effective and less corrupt, which mean giving it a degree of independence from the chief executive.  Then you’ve got 50 state governors AND 50 state legislatures which are also immune to him – plus their judiciaries and executive branches, which are likewise insulated from their governors’ whims.    

He can start wars and launch nukes, which remains a concern.  IF the FBI was 100% on his side, that might be a problem, BUT you still have all those US attorneys across the country with the discretion to act.  The Justice Department can’t necessarily be depended upon to back him up.  Same with the NSA and CIA.  Of course you have 50 state police departments and local PDs which are also independent.  That will make any marijuana crusade a problem in any state where the local government has legalized recreational marijuana – as a more glaring example of how the Feds do NOT have full control of our country no matter who is in the Oval Office. 

So here’s where he screwed up.  It’s tempting to view the US government as something that can be “managed” by someone with sufficient experience in upper level management positions, a CEO who has run a few big firms.  Hell, I added BMGT as a second degree track to GVPT at University of Maryland.  But through most of the private sector, “employment at will” lets a CEO pretty much do as he pleases so long as he doesn’t violate laws – though in the case of ENRON that’s somewhat debatable.  The same degree of omnipotence in business doesn’t exist in government (outside of totalitarian regimes).  I get the impression that people like Mark Cuban and Warren Buffett, or even Mitt Romney, can grasp that – notice how little interest the most highly capable business leaders show in running for any political office.  I don’t think Carly Fiorina understood that – nor does Donald Trump, but he’s quickly learning…the hard way.  He walked into a buzzsaw. 

Impeachment.   Now I zone out when I hear the I-word burped about on Facebook by those who obviously didn’t vote for Trump and feel his election is some massive travesty.   Except that impeachment is so obviously politically motivated, a hopelessly un-subtle attempt to achieve judicially that which could not be done last November at the ballot box, that no one need concern themselves with the issue.  IF and WHEN Trump does commit some major crime which does legitimately merit impeachment, then and only then should we go about the process.  With his arrogance, cluelessness, and tendency to ignore advice which contradicts what he would do anyway, that’s actually not nearly as remote a possibility as it would be for previous Presidents, even George W. Bush, with the sense to play by the rules.  Otherwise we’re in a position where the losing side invariably barks and brays for this, gets it, we get stuck with Pence or Biden (until they screw up in turn) and we’re left with a revolving door of Presidents. 

[Actually, the closest parallel to Hitler I see in American politics is fictional:  Frank Underwood, from "House of Cards".  Fortunately, Underwood remains a fictional character.   Or has Kevin Spacey put his hat in the ring?]

Enough already.  Focus on the 2018 elections and picking the right person to run against Trump in 2020.

Berlin

No, nothing to do with Lou Reed.  Berlin, the capital of Germany, definitely ranks #1 in my bucket list of places to visit.  So far, I haven’t been able to manage it.  I did, however, read two books on the city.

 Intro.  Berlin is the capital of Germany, and was the capital of Prussia from 1307 (its birth) until 1871 when Germany was unified.  After WWII the city was split into East and West Berlin, with the infamous wall installed in 1961 and torn down by Roger Waters in 1990.  The city was large and cosmopolitan, always somewhat more liberal and tolerant than the rest of Germany; its nightlife sometimes disparaged as decadent and irreverent.  Jews prospered more in Berlin than in the rest of Germany, and its Jewish community, if not enjoying complete acceptance as equals, at least suffered less contempt and resentment from their German peers than they did elsewhere in the country.  Naturally Berlin suffered heavy bombing during WWII, but has recovered nicely.  The city is constantly changing, an urban microcosm of the most progressive elements of German society.  To quote Rush, “He knows changes aren't permanent, but change is.”

 The Garden of Beasts, Erik Larson.  Like Devil & The White City, this is non-fiction dressed up in a novelesque fashion; Larson has a rare ability to tell true stories in a way that sounds like fiction.  This particular “story” is about US Ambassador Dodd, who took over in Nazi Germany in summer 1933 and continued until early 1938.  Dodd wasn’t FDR’s first choice; he only got the job because all the prior candidates passed on it.  His wife seems to be nonexistent and his grown son was off cavorting elsewhere, so the primary focus is upon the ambassador himself and his daughter Martha, whose intimacies were somewhat…widely distributed.  Among her lovers were Rudolf Diels, the original head of the Gestapo; Boris, an NKVD agent at the Soviet embassy; and some other somewhat interesting but far less important people.  At one point she was even introduced to Adolf Hitler himself as a potential match (before he hooked up with Eva Braun), but that plan fell through.  She was married but separated at the time.  Back in Washington, the State Dept. was none too thrilled with Martha’s social life.  Dodd himself was unpopular at State – he was a North Carolina bumpkin, a U. Chicago scholar on the South, and very much a fish out of water among wealthy, extravagant diplomats who threw lavish parties with zero discretion as to cost, this amidst the Great Depression when millions were out of work and starving.  He was unsuccessful at persuading the Nazis to honor the debt obligations of their predecessors (back in Washington they called him “Ambassador Dud”), and equally unsuccessful at persuading them to leave the Jews alone.  They even blew him off when he complained about mistreatment of Jews who were actually U.S. citizens.  While many in the US were anti-Semitic and initially thrilled and impressed with Hitler, The Night of the Long Knives (June 1934) pretty much turned most of the right-thinking Westerners off the Nazis and convinced them, “Ok, we’re basically dealing with thugs and murderers here.”   

 Berlin At War, Roger Moorhouse.  I read this to complement the Garden book, and it did so fairly well. There is no overlap:  Garden effectively ends in early 1938 when Dodd returned home to the US, whereas this book starts on April 20, 1939, Hitler’s fiftieth birthday.  This is “WWII through the eyes of Berliners”.  The author warns that while the book is loosely chronologically organized, he does often deal with themes which straddle multiple years, so there is some back-and-forth.  Here are the phases:

            Early war:  Germany is kicking ass.  Soldiers come home occasionally on leave.  Rationing begins rather early and food gets harder to come by.  The English start bombing but this is really no big deal, far more of an occasional nuisance and inconvenience than a threat: “Is that all you got?”  The blackout rules caused far more damage and inconvenience than the bombing itself.  There’s a big discussion on “ersatz” substitutes for food and other items (never even close to being acceptable and always unpopular) and the black market.

            Middle war:  The news from the front is not quite as pleasant, and more men are not coming home at all.  The British begin a new wave of nighttime bombing which is considerably heavier and deadlier than the initial raids.  This is when Berliners learn about bomb shelters and such.

            Later war:  The Americans begin daylight bombing.  This, more than anything else, convinced the Germans that Goering was full of shit.  The nastiness bumped up considerably.  And when reports came back about Hamburg, the Berliners were even more terrified.  The fact that Berlin started catching it worse rather than better, and consistently bad news from the front, meant that Berliners really had nothing to look forward to anymore.

            1945: the Russians come.  The city was surrounded, so whoever didn’t make it out had to contend with Russian soldiers intent on looting and raping.  A last-ditch home defense militia, the Volkssturm was called up – but due to Germany’s already efficient system of conscription, they could only scrape up the oldest and youngest to fight.  There was no question of winning the war – it was now simply a matter of survival.  Rather than simply enduring unpleasant food substitutes, death by starvation became a real danger.