Another historical. By now you’re all probs thinking – why isn’t she a historian?
I bought this autobiography displaying a tyrant of a man. Literally the most vilest of things. Now I’m sure that you all sometimes wonder, how did he get so far. How did he accomplish something that was & is viewed as ghastly along with deplorable?
It’s known that Hitler’s talent was words, being an incredible speaker. As I began reading I learnt of the complex relationship between his father & him. Hitler aged 12 was questioned on what he aspired to be, to his fathers disappointment Hitler stated:
“When as a result of my renewed refusal to adopt his favourite plan, my father asked me for the first time what I myself really wished to be, the resolution that I had already formed expressed itself almost automatically. For a while my father was speechless.
“A painter? An artist-painter?” he exclaimed. Artist not as long as I live, Never!”. As the son has inherited some of the fathers obstinacy my reply was equally energetic.
But this did not answer my question. Who inspired Hitler to speak as he did? The enigmatic energy that oozed from each word. The terror that formed in the eyes of the listeners.
Then came a name, Dr. Leopold Poetsch, a professor of history.
“An elderly gentleman with a decisive manner but a kindly heart. He was a very attractive speaker & was able to inspire us with his own enthusiasm.
Growing up one acknowledged that he initially did not abhor the Jews, quite alarming really isn’t it.
In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he has a different faith”.
I mean I never truly understood, there’s many more complex matters that switched his idea of the Jews from not being bothered to loathing. And its quite inconceivable.
There’s no denying that although young Hitler was reluctant to pursue the path of his father, as he matured he enjoyed listening & reading politics. His life of barely managing to make enough for daily bread would suck him into the social circle of the “proletariat” hearing views on how the socio economic strata treated them unjustly along with a profound bias.
Naturally he was working for the “bourgeoise” hence he began to despise the system & felt a prejudice they radiated towards those whom were not as affluent as them.
From what I read, I grasped the idea he saw some correlation between Marxists and Jews. So I became a little confused as I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) but he didn’t fully agree or like the Marxists? But isn’t there a contradiction? Marxists believe in equal distribution of wealth right? And meritocracy? So this would negate his attitude towards the Jews which he assumed were the bourgeoisie?
There’s far to much delineated in this book, at some points you feel you’re going to have a breakdown as he jumps from one topic to another. He was a true nutter, even in writing.
What’s the knowledge one acquires from this autobiography? He let his emotions take over & control his actions, proceeding too far causing the annihilation of several innocents.
Furthermore, language. If you can educate yourself to grasp the true meaning of words and project this to people you could win them over with your speech. I’m not saying what he did was right, I’m stating how he exploited his gift, an astute, wicked soul.
However, if one is strong in their words, use it in a positive manner. Spread wisdom, morals & kindness – Just imagine how he could have changed the world for the better if only he used his talent to bring people together, not against.
Honestly, in my opinion, this is a very troubling & difficult book to read. So, unless you want an in depth explanation on Hitler – don’t go for it & read some Anna Karenina instead or the Romanovs, yes the Romanovs is actually lighter & migraine free!
Love ya mes chers ❤