> Sure, Paul. What I meant was that it was the city where Hitler began
> his career. In Vienna he had observed the Jews.
he began his political career in Muenchen, but had been a dilettante of
politics in Wien....
After four years of
> trenches and a peace that was considered treason, now the communists
> were in a very German city.
so Communists and 'very German' don't really go together?
All these things grew into each other.
> We have to grant to Hitler more historical conscience, or intuition,
> than to those who 'professionally' oppose him, even so long after
> his death.
I think so, the greatest mistake made by his opponents when he was alive was
to underestimate him. Even though he is now dead, he still foreshadows,
overshadows, casts a shadow, over our world. We must never underestimate
his legacy, or the influence he has over those disillusioned with the
Liberal project. The point is this: what creates that disillusionment?
> Heidegger once said that over against objective history, marxist
> history is infintely superior. It still has an eye for the question, what
> history is, what it is to US.
but other philosophies of history also ask that question, don't they?
Marxist history differs from other forms of historicism or historiography,
in setting no defining limits on the scope and creativity of Capitalism (of
course it does other things besides), thus Capitalists have always been
clever in countering Marxism, particularly by reading Marx.
Otherwise it is merely the theatre of
> Yes, like looking at old pictures, defining them as 'fine' or 'poor'.
> Thanks for some history.
> >The causes of WW1 was a general collpase of diplomacy and the checks and
> >balances that held up the status quo. The status quo was undermined by
> >Germany's aggressive desire for an overseas empire, a place in the sun.
> >all the other W European countries had expanded globally, Germany's
> >insistence flew in the face of British interests, as did the arms race
> >preceded the war. I don't think we can attribute guilt. Everyone was
> >guilty, in fact the notion of guilt, a legalistic term, I believe to be
> >irrelevant, or of marginal relevance (and this applies to recent events
> >too). The system that had been in place collapsed, because it was only a
> >temporary solution. Cut and paste solutions, such as Israel and Ulster -
> >essence, ahistorical states, and Yugoslavia can be named as another one,
> >remember Gavrio Princip, the member of the Black Hand terrorist
> >that assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, was Serbian, and thus
> >another terrorist from one of these marginal 'ahistorical' states - hold
> >uneasy truce, but are never permanent solutions. They were never meant
> >be. All the purported 'solutions' to the problems in these regions, were
> >later exposed to be as phoney as the brokers who 'solved' them. If
> >diplomacy has broken down again, it is because the uneasy truce
> >in these ahistorical states has once again broken down, and this break
> >as profound as anoraexia or a psychotic episode, threatens the hegemony
> >the main powers, or of the superpower. The schizophrenic relationship of
> >the Imperialist to the Colonised, a relationship of inverted, unreal
> >'dependency', has to be addressed, and cured, but not in the sense that
> >physical or mental illness is 'cured', ie with drug therapy, the stages
> >recovery, the final cure. No, in reality the Imperialist and the
> >have formed a symbiosis, one with the other, an inverted dependency,
> >algebraic equation, and deeply, intrinsically suicidal for both parties.
> >The illness, because that is a better term than 'guilt' which establishes
> >clear dichotomy, guilt/innocence hence leaving no middle ground, of
> >because the middle ground is where most life is - and its deepest
> >presumptions and assumptions, have to be questioned at an absolute level,
> >and then ameliorated by tactics of disguise, flight and, possible
> >labyrinthine strategems, on the part of the colonised, to displace and
> >ridicule the Imperialist, not perhaps by crashing jets into tall
> >a possibly understandable act in regard to other events both nihilistic
> >barbaric, only leading to another uneasy cut and paste solution.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 8:28 PM
> >Subject: Re: ontical history
> >> Rene de Bakker wrote:
> >> > >> >Germany practically started WWI for
> >> > >> >reasons that had nothing to do with the assasination of Franz
> >> >Ferdinand
> >> > >>
> >> > >>Germany made important mistakes,
> >> > >
> >> > >"important mistakes"????
> >> >
> >> >Now we're so far that every word leads to confusion. You've cut my
> >> >sentence,
> >> >which simply said that when you blame one you can blame them all.
> >> >Germany only makes a difference, insofar it became a significant power
> >> >only in the second half of the 19th century, because the Prussians
> >> >assessed what was necessary for Germany to keep on living in
> >> >a nationalistic imperialistic Europe. The 'mistakes' I was talking of,
> >> >1. competing in colonies 2. building a fleet , which
> >> >lead only to England's mistrust, and nothing more (Skagerrak)
> >> Then your reply did not address what I said, because I specifically and
> >> explicitly referred to (1) Germany's deliberate pressuring of
> >> to make their ultimatum to Serbia so impossibly demanding that they
> >> Serbia would never accept it, thereby leading to war with France, and
> >> Germany's deliberate undermining of all British attempts at peaceful
> >> mediation with Serbia. When you replied to this by saying that
> >> were made," I therefore assumed you were talking about the things I
> >> specifically brought up, which were those two things. So to reply by
> >> referring to other "mistakes" would then not even address my argument
> >> German culpability from those two things.
> >> >The analysis of the factual beginning of the war is less interesting,
> >> >as to that, all in all the fingers are pointing to Russia now.
> >> Still waiting for that text Rene.
> >> >And the most important of all: Germany lied in the middle.
> >> >Then one can permit oneself no "either...or...", but only
> >> >and...and... . Philosophically this is advantegeous
> >> Um, someone can be in the middle and still be an unjustified cause of
> >> Yes tensions had long been building between Russia, Germany, and
> >> That does not change the fact that Germany deliberately triggered the
> >> explosive release of that tension, by using the assassination of
> >> as a convenient excuse.
> >> > >Rene YOU were the one who brought up the killing of millions of
> >> > >aristocracy, etc., in Russia. I simply reasoned from the criteria
> >> >YOU >yourself provided (the killing of millions of peasants...) in
> >> >parallel >between America's right to attack today with a German right
> >> >attack Russia >at that time, and showed that there's one little
> >> >which breaks your >attempted comparison: millions were also similarly
> >> >killed in Germany at that >time.
> >> >
> >> >You don't understand. You know about the end of the war and the
> >> >efforts to export revolution to Germany, Muenchen of all places?
> >> >The fear towards Russia, the KNOWLEDGE that the peasants and
> >> >had been murdered there so close to Germany, was one of the main
> >> >weapons of Hitler. But when Nolte brought this in the
> >> >was
> >> >defamed. Auschwitz HAD to be worse than Gulag.
> >> Ok, but the fact that the Gulag was worse than Auschwitz does not
> >> fact that the same criteria you brought up occurred at Auschwitz too
> >> (admittedly less in numbers, but still millions of peasants... were
> >> So your comparison fails, because the standard you yourself brought up
> >> then apply not only to Russia, but also to Germany.
> >> >Without all this one cannot understand the period between the 2 ww's,
> >> >and Heidegger made this clear, also after ww2. (Stalin winning a
> >> >every day)
> >> >But i began this for this reason: you don't want to be compared with
> >> >Hitler Germany. Then when you say: we are threatened and take action,
> >> >i say: can you imagine Germany felt threatened? And when you say:
> >> >9/11 is reason enough, then i say: is ww1 (that's where the millions
> >> >reason enough, and please study the disaster that is called Versailles
> >> >treaty,
> >> First of all, I NEVER said that 9/11 is reason enough. Rene it is
> >> willed blindness to characterize in that way the arguments I have been
> >> giving. I said that Iraq has blatantly violated UN resolutions 687 and
> >> (thereby violating John's supposed "mitsein"). I also said that the
> >> against humanity which have occurred in Iraq surpass what Milosevic
> >> das Man certainly took care of Milosevic, didn't it (without UN
> >> might add, and therefore without John's supposed mitsein). I also
> >> to the North Korean parallel. Those are reasons I have explicitly
> >> to, which do not have to do with 9/11, so how you can characterize my
> >> argument the way you did is simply beyond me.
> >> >The Endloesung began AFTER the Russia campaign. In fact, this war
> >> >gave Hitler the opportunity. thoughtprovoking.
> >> The fact that it began after the Russian campaign does not change the
> >> that it occurred, thereby satisfying the very criterion you gave
> >> millions of peasants...). That is enough to break your parallel,
> >> then "today's standards" would point at both Russia AND Germany.
> >> Anthony Crifasi
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> >> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> >> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> > --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> drs. Rene de Bakker
> Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam
> Afdeling Catalogisering
> tel. 020-5252368
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---