A question.

I’d say it’s a perfect example of the culture of “Acceptance,” and “Diversity” in the West. Nothing is wrong, evil, or crazy; just “Different.” And we must all accept differences. :roll:

A guy I know read (I haven’t myself) it and I was around when he was reading the parts about using the media it made me uncomfortable that a couple of things he quoted sounded right on.

I don’t think your aquaintance was crazy for suggesting that it was an alternative viewpoint. He didn’t say anything about anyone having to accept it. To quote Spock, “I was not attempting to evaluate the ethical implications, Doctor.”

Maybe he felt you were being defensive and was attempting to put you at ease.

A coin has two sides as the saying goes.

Most of it is about the resurection of Germany.  Very little of it (at least the version I purchased and read about 20 years ago) was about the Jews and Gypsies.

By and large, it was a borad outline for HOW to make Germany strong again, and how to increase the size and power of Germany.

Even with the religious aspects, it was not terribly different (except perhaps in bluntness) of our own DOD evaluations about Iraq and all the religious aspects of that political stabilization and control, though perhaps a bit less detailed than our reports.

Hitler had a lot of ‘quiet time’ in prison, and he organized his thoughts on seizing power and raising Germany’s power and prestige in the world view.  He set this up as a guideline, and he followed it.  People who read it at that time didn’t believe it, I guess.

This is a problem concerning looking back on history.  What you know of Hitler (primarily killing millions of people and starting a war) can be attributed to him from when he was conceived until his death.  You look upon him with that lens always on.  That’s probably why you were turned off when this individual said that Hitler’s book (not killing millions of people) was a different POV, by association.

@Jermofoot:

This is a problem concerning looking back on history.  What you know of Hitler (primarily killing millions of people and starting a war) can be attributed to him from when he was conceived until his death.  You look upon him with that lens always on.  That’s probably why you were turned off when this individual said that Hitler’s book (not killing millions of people) was a different POV, by association.

That is an excellent point. Our looks back tend to be colored by our present preferences. They can interfere with objectivity.

Hitler is one of the most important figures of the last century. Reading the autobiographys and biographys of important people has always been considered part of being literate.

@frimmel:

@Jermofoot:

This is a problem concerning looking back on history.  What you know of Hitler (primarily killing millions of people and starting a war) can be attributed to him from when he was conceived until his death.  You look upon him with that lens always on.  That’s probably why you were turned off when this individual said that Hitler’s book (not killing millions of people) was a different POV, by association.

That is an excellent point. Our looks back tend to be colored by our present preferences. They can interfere with objectivity.

Hitler is one of the most important figures of the last century. Reading the autobiographys and biographys of important people has always been considered part of being literate.

satan is an important person but i prefer to read the Bible and not his book. your freind didn’t want to offend you and tried to sound nice even though he thought you were a whacko nazi.