Revealed: secret of Hitler's slippers

Scotland on Sunday ^ | February 13, 2005 | MURDO MACLEOD

[P_A_I]

SilentServiceCPOWife wrote:


I just don't see how people found his ranting appealing.
He seemed to be out of control during his speeches. That would have frightened me.

I get very uncomfortable when liberals do it now, so it's difficult for me to understand why so many Germans liked it at the time.


__________________________________


It's partly just the nature of the German language. Anything said loud sounds like a rant.

We haven't had a spellbinding orator in the USA since Lincoln, imo.
Although FDR's attempts were pretty scary at times.

[dog breath]

Some people like Manson, Jim Jones, Rasputin and Hitler seem to of radiated an energy, a force of personality that is beyond easy explaining except in religious terms. The only non religious explanation, I can conceive of, is perhaps genius level sociopaths have a extraordinary talent for manipulating people. I prefer to go with attributing it to the struggle between the powers of good and evil in the universe. Sometimes the evil in this world is a mighty strong thing.

[SilentServiceCPOWife]

We haven't had a spellbinding orator in the USA since Lincoln, imo.

What about Ronald Reagan?

[tet68]

Actually Hitler's speeches were well thought out and rehearsed for their effect on the masses, his gestures
were practiced and photographed by his official photographer, and studied to give him the effect he wanted.

He often times started in a slow and quiet manner gradually
becoming more and more excited as his audience responded.

The torch light parades, the Zeppelin field and the upturned
search lights, (Speer's idea, and one of the most incredible
effects imaginable, and of course one that because of it's use there, has never been replicated to this day) all tended
to give the individual German the sense of belonging and the feeling that all his fellows were of the same mind.

[Cacique]

Of the four greatest orators of the 20th century only one was the elected leader of a democracy.

[nmh]

Curious about Max and Moritz?

I was so I went over to ebay and now post some of the customer reviews. I understand why ole Adolph would like that stuff. Some of it is a tad sadistic.

Wilhelm Busch (1832-1908) is known as the author of "Max and Moritz," but the scope of his works is much broader. He is not an author of children's books in the first place. He wrote many stories of satire and slapstick humor not primarily aimed at children, illustrated by his own drawings - for which he is justly famous. Some people even regard him as the father of the modern comic strip. Had he worked in our time, his equals would be the likes of F. K. Waechter, Tomi Ungerer, Jean-Jacques Sempé, and Ronald Searle.

Although the two cannot be compared, Busch's "Max and Moritz" ranks in Germany on the same level as Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" in the English speaking world. Wherever an Englishman would quote Lewis Carroll's "Alice", a German is likely to quote Busch.

Children won't catch Busch's gentle satire in "Max and Moritz." The whole concept of satire is not familiar to them, of course. But while the little ones breathlessly follow the naughty pranks, Dad smiles at the fun Busch makes of the adults in "Max and Moritz." Widow Tibbets is a good example. While professing tender feelings for her chicks, she is in reality rather practical minded. So when Max and Moritz manage to kill her chickens - and the rooster, for that matter - she grieves, but not too deeply:

When the worthy Widow Tibbets
(Whom the cut below exhibits)
Had recovered, on the morrow,
From the dreadful shock of sorrow,
She (as soon as grief would let her
Think) began to think 'twere better
Just to take the dead, the dear ones
(Who in life were walking here once),
And in a still noonday hour
Them, well roasted, to devour.

In fact, Walter Arndt's translation in this edition is very good and captures precisely Busch's style.

Let me add a word of warning to trusting parents. Busch shares the mischievous streak in Max and Moritz, and while his two young protagonists play rather violent tricks on the townspeople - a taylor almost drowns and a teacher gets his face burned from an exploding pipe - Busch himself plays the most violent trick on Max and Moritz. In their last prank they cut open the grain sacks of a farmer who finds the two boys in their hiding place, drags them to a mill and has them ground to pieces, which - Gary Larson would have loved that part - are being eaten by two of the Miller's ducks:

"In with 'em!" Each wretched flopper
Headlong goes into the hopper.
As the farmer turns his back, he
Hears the mill go "creaky! cracky!"
Here you see the bits post mortem,
Just as Fate was pleased to sort 'em.
Master Miller's ducks with speed
Gobbled up the coarse-grained feed.

The good and upright people of the village are so relieved. Good riddance to Max and Moritz, they think. But of course they put that more politically correct:

Through the place in short there went
One wide murmur of content:
"God be praised! the town is free
From this great rascality!"

In short: this is great stuff for the kids if you manage to explain the fine points. As a starting point I recommend to brand the pranks of Max and Moritz as "very naughty" and take it from there. Once the kids begin to understand that the grinder is an even worse (adult) version of the two boys' malicious pranks you have won half the battle.

---

Required reading for all spoiled children!, August 24, 2004
Reviewer: FOX (USA) - See all my reviews
A great classic book of "nursery ryhmes" for spoiled children to show them what happens to those that are nasty.

Max and Moritz play evil pranks on animals and people and in the end are thrown into a mill and ground up into feed and eaten up by ducks.

Nowadays, parents allow their kids to run around and scream, spill and break things and NEVER are the kids punished, the parents just smile and say: "Kids will be kids."

I wasn't that way when I was a kid. Because my parents TOLD me that was wrong and not to do it. Since parents today are not capable of teaching their kids, I supose these books are the only hope for saving our society.

I bought several of this book and others that are recommended by Amazon.com of similar nature to give to the tiny terrorists that run around yelling and screaming and destroying things around the neighborhood.

Since they probably don't know how to read and never read a book before, at least them showing the book to their parents should be a good wake up call to the parents that it is time to start TEACHING their kids not to do certain things that are evil.

---

Required reading for all spoiled children!, August 24, 2004
Reviewer: FOX (USA) - See all my reviews
A great classic book of "nursery ryhmes" for spoiled children to show them what happens to those that are nasty.

Max and Moritz play evil pranks on animals and people and in the end are thrown into a mill and ground up into feed and eaten up by ducks.

Nowadays, parents allow their kids to run around and scream, spill and break things and NEVER are the kids punished, the parents just smile and say: "Kids will be kids."

I wasn't that way when I was a kid. Because my parents TOLD me that was wrong and not to do it. Since parents today are not capable of teaching their kids, I supose these books are the only hope for saving our society.

I bought several of this book and others that are recommended by Amazon.com of similar nature to give to the tiny terrorists that run around yelling and screaming and destroying things around the neighborhood.

Since they probably don't know how to read and never read a book before, at least them showing the book to their parents should be a good wake up call to the parents that it is time to start TEACHING their kids not to do certain things that are evil.

---

[tet68]

Hitler was also fond of American wild west writers usually
of the dime novel sort, and seemed to take his images of
American behaviour from them. I would suppose he was exposed
to these before WW. I. When he was living in the hostel and
bumming around the streets trying to get accepted into the
Art school,or perhaps after he was rejected by them, and was
reduced to painting post cards.

[P_A_I]

Not bad, but hardly spellbinding.

His only great speech was at the Goldwater convention, imho. He coulda been a contender, but he let political realities shut him up.
-- Damn shame.

[Cacique]

Reagan was a great communicator, he knew how to use the camera, he was an actor after all. As far as an orator he was about average.

[tet68]

I imagine this is where the cartoon strip, the Katzenjammer
Kids was drawn?

I used to love those guys, they always got it in the end,
but it never stopped them.

[SilentServiceCPOWife]

Is being a great orator even useful anymore? Wouldn't it be wasted on the average person?

[Cacique]

To clarify who the four were;

Adolf Hoitler
Benito Mussolini
Juan Dopmingo Perón
Winston Spencer Churchill

[SilentServiceCPOWife]

That's very interesting. I didn't realize how much stage management was involved in his speeches.

[Cacique]

No, the effect of great orator is that he precisely targets the average person and is able to momentarily sway opinion. Of course the grand rallies where men like Hitler and Perón excelled are rare in the United States. But in other countries being able to address crowds of half a million and mesmerize them is an art form that is still useful and always will be. What makes the 20th century orators exceptional was that they mastered and melded the old art of oratory with the modern medium of film, radio and public address systems. Churchill in my opinion was even greater because it was his words rather than his presence that had effect. Whereas Hitler, Mussolini and Perón used theatrics as a supplement.

[SilentServiceCPOWife]

What about Lenin? Do you consider him a great orator?

[Cacique]

Most of what has been written about Lenin shows he was an average orator. Where Lennin exceled was in strategy. Naming his faction "Bolsheviki" even though they held merely 11% of the seats in the Duma etc.. Lenin simply took advantage of the situation he found himself in and was lucky to have survived the infancy of the revolution. However, you won't find his name on any list of great orators. Fidel Castro fancies himself an orator but gives long boring speeches. I have had occasion to hear Castro, he could make the dead deader. I feel for all those poor Cubans who have to sit there and listen to his dribble so often.

[SilentServiceCPOWife]

What about Trotsky?

I hope you don't mind all of these questions. I find the subject very interesting.

[P_A_I]

SilentServiceCPOWife wrote:

Is being a great orator even useful anymore? Wouldn't it be wasted on the average person?

---

I shudder to thing of what another Hitler type could do with our modern forms of media.

[Cacique]

Trotsky's reputation for oratory was far greater than that of Lenin and Lenin was lucky that Trostsky decided to join his faction. As head of the Red army he was mainly responsible for the survival of the revolution and Trotsky used hir oratorical skill to motivate his troops. However, even his oratory did not save him from a duplicitous, ruthless and scheeming Stalin, who incidentally, had no oratorical skills whatsoever. His Russian was poor and heavily accented by his Georgian background. Stalin ruled by sheer terror.

[SilentServiceCPOWife]

Can you think of anyone that has that potential?