Reddit reviews Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris

We found 11 Reddit comments about Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

W W Norton Company

11 Reddit comments about Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris:

u/mikeaveli2682 · 52 pointsr/hiphopheads

u/Singulaire · 21 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Grayson is so ignorant of European history and knows so little of how Hitler rose to power that he doesn't understand how this exact kind of "beat the fascists wherever you encounter them" rhetoric, and the resultant breakdown of civil discourse and democratic compromise, was instrumental to Nazi success.

Read a fucking book, Nate. Specifically this book. Yes, I know it has a picture of Hitler on the cover, but try to power through your mental breakdown and read it anyway.

u/iminthinkermode · 6 pointsr/badhistory

Since you've actually gone to the subreddit I'll take your word for what you have read, I was looking at articles written about the alt-right and basing my assessment on that.

However, really quickly on your assertions

>That's most definitely not nazism.

>That one actually isn't either.

regarding the Nazi economic system I'm just wondering where you might have learned such inaccuracies? Is there a particular source you are drawing you knowledge from?

Were you referencing the The 25-point Program of the NSDAP which states:

We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

You found these statements to be in line with what you imagine to be a Capitalist system?

Maybe you might want to read Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris, by Ian Kershaw to learn a little more about the centralization of agricultural policy and nationalization of German industry during rearmament.

I was able to access this using my University login if you have the ability you might check out this also-The Economic Doctrine of National Socialism by Emil Lederer

Or War and Economy in the Third Reich by R. J. Overy
to learn about:
During the 12 years of the Third Reich, government ownership expanded greatly into formerly private sectors of strategic industries: aviation, synthetic oil and rubber, aluminum, chemicals, iron and steel, and army equipment.
The capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during this same period, whereby the nationalization caused state-ownership of companies to increase to over 500 businesses.
Further, government finances for state-owned enterprises quadrupled from 1933 to 1943.

Or Richard J. Evans's The Third Reich in Power, 1933-1939 to learn:
Where the Nazi administration wanted additional industrial capacity, they would first nationalize and then establish a new state-owned-and-operated company. In 1937 Hermann Göring targeted companies producing iron ore, “taking control of all privately owned steelworks and setting up a new company, known as the Hermann Göring Works.”

Or Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Götz Aly:
The welfare of the common people (Volk) was a primary consideration in determining Nazi policy. From the start of the regime’s power, the commoners’ needs were prioritized and their lot economically improved, first through an efficient campaign to eradicate unemployment and nationalization of major industries and then, throughout the war, by incurring an irresponsible level of state debt that was balanced by political and economic violence in occupied territories
Hitler was “an enemy of free market economics” whose regime was committed to an economic “New Order” controlled by the “Party through a bureaucratic apparatus staffed by technical experts and dominated by political interests,” similar to the economic planning of the Soviet Union.

Or Günter Reimann's The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism:
By the late 1930s, taxation, regulations and general hostility towards the business community were becoming so onerous that one German businessman wrote: "These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth,'” while some businessmen were “studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system."
In other cases, National Socialist officials were levying harsh fines of millions of marks for a “single bookkeeping error.” The anti-business motives behind the Nationalist Socialists has been attributed to the Nazi leadership’s aim “to soak the rich and ‘neutralize big spenders,’” since they harbored “hostility towards the wealthy.”

The sources are from the class I took last year "Origins Of Nazism" taught by Anne Berg at the University of Michigan, I can include more if you would like to read some more.

u/jlalbrecht · 4 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

The Weimar Germany versions of the Koch brothers (whose father btw built a refinery for Hitler) were very unhappy with democracy. They liked the old patronage system under the Kaiser. They believed they could control Hitler and the Nazis and were all too happy to support him (if not officially) in order to get rid of democracy. Great books if you have time are Ian Kershaw's two volume biography of Hitler (Hubris and Nemesis).

u/mnemosyne-0002 · 3 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Archives for the links in comments:

By Singulaire (amazon.com): http://archive.is/qbqch

----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Needs more turboencabulator. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time

u/Odenetheus · 2 pointsr/Conservative

Oh please. The Nazi ideology and socialism are two mutually exclusive ideologies. Hitler used the phrase "National Socialist" to co-opt the worker movement, not because there was ever any connection between nazism and communism or socialism.

This has to be one of the absolutely most asinine myths to flourish in the US, along with the notion that contrails, in reality, are chemtrails, or that Obama was not an American citizen.

The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee, over Hitler's objections, in order to help appeal to left-wing workers (p. 68)

In Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"; 1924–1925), Hitler outlined the anti-Semitism and anti-Communism at the heart of his political philosophy, as well as his disdain for representative democracy and his belief in Germany's right to territorial expansion (p. 243-249)

Hitler himself stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal. (p. 343)

There is no basis for thinking nazism and socialism or communism are related ideologies.

u/WARFTW · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

Try Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris by Ian Kershaw.

u/Knock0nWood · 1 pointr/news

Oh, I'm not trying to whitewash the church's involvement with the Nazi state. Both Catholic and Protestant churches overwhelmingly supported most things that Hitler did, from clergy to laypeople to theological scholars. For the most part the church was an ally of Hitler's, and he certainly did his best to court it. But that is very different from saying that Hitler was a devout Christian, or fundamentalist.

What you have to understand about Mein Kampf is that it was just as much a propaganda tool as it was a manifesto of what Hitler believed. He dictated it while he was in prison and his position in the NSDAP was far from secure. Much of what he said in Mein Kampf was meant to boost his image with certain groups of people, and shouldn't be taken at face value as his beliefs. Really, you shouldn't be taking what he says in the book at face value anyway because it contradicts itself so much. In any case, don't take the lip service he pays to Christianity in MK as representative of how he actually felt about it.

I'm really not sure how you can say Hitler was a fundamentalist Christian when he made every effort to Nazify church doctrine to the point where it is nearly unrecognizable. The Reich church literally threw out the Old Testament and completely changed the Gospels so that Jesus wasn't even Jewish. Hitler's religion was Germany and himself; he was only a Christian in the most trivial sense.

If you're not in the habit of taking the opinions of random redditors seriously (which is fine), I HIGHLY recommend Complicity in the Holocaust : Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany by Robert P. Ericksen. Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris by Ian Kershaw is also an outstanding biography that covers Hitler's formative years and ideological development in great detail. I don't have my copies with me right now so unfortunately I can't cite them, but if you read those books I think you will have a much different picture of Hitler's motivations.

u/drbeavi5 · 1 pointr/HistoryPorn

yes. It was a two part book actually. Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris

Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis

Not the quickest read, its super in depth. But I promise you'll know more about Hitler and Germany around that time than 99% of people.

u/AstrangerR · 1 pointr/HistoryPorn

Ian Kershaw is a historian who wrote a two part biography that was very good. The first part is "Hubris" about 1888-1936 and the second part Nemesis about the years 1936-1945.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is also good but it was written by a journalist who lived in Germany at the time - so there definitely is some bias in what he wrote. That's not to say that it's not worth reading or that it isn't informative though.

u/Probate_Judge · 0 pointsr/EnoughTrumpSpam

> spouts Nazi ideology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywmd8kR-AmI

>"hitler books"

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1889-1936-Hubris-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393320359

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1936-1945-Nemesis-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393322521

Because no one has ever studied Hitler...[facepalm] These are not propaganda pieces, but detailed biography and breakdown of the politics and strategies of the man and the era.

I mean, despite his vileness, he was successful. If you want to know when it's happening, you kinda have to know how it happened the first time. In all actuality, if you read even a little(I'll include links at the end), you can see exactly the same traits in the regressive left who uses patronizing racism to manipulate the populace.

You know who else...:

...had a thing against Judeo Christians as a whole?

...had a thing for Islam despite an obvious contradiction in agenda?

...whipped up crowds with vitriol and false accusations, using scapegoats to blame societal problems on?

...was a socialist and advocated violence instead of reason?

...carries out their violence without a tinge of conscience?

...wanted to split people up by immutable traits of groups instead of personal responsibility?

...sought to eradicate or limit certain rights like the right to firearms, free speech, and freedom of the press?

...had a dislike of individual rights such as materialism?

...makes claims of merely defending society from some nebulous embodiment injustice yet can't really come up with good examples that stand-up under scrutiny?

...supported their platform based on inequality of races?

...uses their own version of previously established language, their campaign centering on rhetoric and crass exaggerations rather than sound reason?

...had a convenient habit of dismissing their own flawed arguments out of hand?

...infiltrated the universities and encouraged teaching there to mirror their agenda?

...had youth outreach programs?

Hint: Reggressive Left and the ultimate villain himself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

See how handy historical knowledge can be?

>Iron Cross

In short, not every "iron cross" is an homage to hitler. When soldiers brought the medals home, they were very often immediately repurposed. The general shape never got quite the stigma that the swastika did. The iron cross became to mean something entirely different as it became more popular in pop culture. It's spread far and wide among wide arrays of culture, bikers, surfers, metal bands, etc and has since survived on it's aesthetics. As is common, people often say the nazi's were despicable, but they did have style.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Cross#In_post-war_pop_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biker_Cross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfer's_cross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kustom_Kulture - Not at all what you'd think.

Other various pictures of Milo being ostentatious, ridiculous, or provocative, stupid, etc:

http://www.peacock-panache.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/out-milo_yiannopolis-clown.png

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/9.jpg

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/Milo-Irvine-2-Jennifer-Lawrence.jpg

http://www.out.com/sites/out.com/files/2016/09/21/160907_milo_yiannopolis_f_0575_prt.jpg

https://lgbtqnation-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-18-at-11.03.57-AM-500x394.png

You really think someone who dresses and talks like the above couldn't wear an Iron cross without being a nazi?

Over all, Instead of believing something you sourced on Tumblr of all places, you may want to, you know, crack a history book or two yourself, get some perspective, or in other words a thing called context.

THIS is why the left is very much the prejudice bigots they're pretending to fight against.