/lit/ - Literature

>>21011145
>ha! heckin fascist dogma rekt
I'm not dogmatic in the slightest so I think its so funny when you say that word over and over. You're literally low-functioning autism, I only have little more than pity for you. Why are you strawmanning me so hard? When did I ever imply that I have to burn books, or that national socialists had to? When did I even insinuate that I cannot critique them? You've never asked for a critique of marxism. You've just been parroting how much I'm dogmatic and how I cannot critique it hahaha. You're so fucking retarded seriously I'd feel like shit if I were you.

>>20322671

>>19815355
>How then did Germany “break the bondage of interest”? Few now know. Rearmament is not a sufficient explanation. Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Answering predictions of ruin by orthodox economists throughout the world, Hitler explained that Germany had not withdrawn from world trade but had bypassed the international financial system by means of barter, stating:

>"If certain countries combat the German system this is done in the first instance because through the German method of trading their tricks of international currency and Bourse speculations have been abolished in favor of honest business transactions. . . . We are buyers of good foodstuff and raw materials and suppliers of equally good commodities!"

>>19809987

>>19805990
>How then did Germany “break the bondage of interest”? Few now know. Rearmament is not a sufficient explanation. Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Answering predictions of ruin by orthodox economists throughout the world, Hitler explained that Germany had not withdrawn from world trade but had bypassed the international financial system by means of barter, stating:

>"If certain countries combat the German system this is done in the first instance because through the German method of trading their tricks of international currency and Bourse speculations have been abolished in favor of honest business transactions. . . . We are buyers of good foodstuff and raw materials and suppliers of equally good commodities!"

>>19731344
>Bräuninger recounts a remarkable incident in which Mussolini invited the German – and incidentally Jewish – translator of Dante, Rudolf Borchardt, to a private audience in 1933, and quotes from Rudolf Borchardt’s Besuch bei Mussolini (Visit to Mussolini):

>'I could only be astonished that this man, the ruler of Italy, with all the burdens of the day’s work on his shoulders, found time to discuss with me the precise translation of individual words and expressions . . . He opened the first Canto and began to read. “That is a literal translation,” he remarked, and then said, “I understand it is written in a modern German style. Wait, what is this?” He pointed to a word he did not know, and I had to explain it to him. . . . Concentrated willpower and a positive sort of decisiveness mastered in large part the rounded and complete gestures of the kind one might expect from a dignitary of the Church or an aristocratic poet, reminding me of some pictures of the later Goethe. . . . Schlegel, Schelling, Hegel, King Johann of Saxony, Vossler, George – he made a brief appraisal of each. “Now to the fifth circle of the Inferno,” he exclaimed, adding rapidly and almost merrily, “Francesca da Remini.” . . . He went to the last stanzas, read out my German translation, then recited the original Italian verses from memory, read more German, and compared them exactly with the verses which he knew by heart. He pointed to a subtlety of tone in the Italian original and wanted to be sure that I had successfully reproduced it in German, reading out my German version slowly and carefully, with a strong but accurate pronunciation. Finally, he interrupted his own criticisms and suggestions by excusing himself, adding that he was only a layman and a mere reader. He closed the book, opened it once more, and finally closed it for good. “Thank you,” he said earnestly, and shook my hand warmly.' (p. 163)

>So much for the ignorant dictator! It would be interesting to know how many professors of Italian literature today could today offer an informed critique of a translation of Dante’s Inferno, citing stanzas by heart, let alone how many mere laymen and readers could do so. Bräuninger tells us that Mussolini was an avid reader of the Classics and a keen opera aficionado, something which tends to be ignored in post-war mainstream historical accounts.

>Much else tends to be downplayed as well, which Bräuninger highlights, including the enormous popularity of Mussolini’s economic and social policies.

>>19705243
>How then did Germany “break the bondage of interest”? Few now know. Rearmament is not a sufficient explanation. Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Answering predictions of ruin by orthodox economists throughout the world, Hitler explained that Germany had not withdrawn from world trade but had bypassed the international financial system by means of barter, stating:

>"If certain countries combat the German system this is done in the first instance because through the German method of trading their tricks of international currency and Bourse speculations have been abolished in favor of honest business transactions. . . . We are buyers of good foodstuff and raw materials and suppliers of equally good commodities!"

>>19590095
>How then did Germany “break the bondage of interest”? Few now know. Rearmament is not a sufficient explanation. Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Answering predictions of ruin by orthodox economists throughout the world, Hitler explained that Germany had not withdrawn from world trade but had bypassed the international financial system by means of barter, stating:

>"If certain countries combat the German system this is done in the first instance because through the German method of trading their tricks of international currency and Bourse speculations have been abolished in favor of honest business transactions. . . . We are buyers of good foodstuff and raw materials and suppliers of equally good commodities!"

>>16000829
I'm sorry Dad

>>16000859
Nice i been nonstop reading psychology for uni (so that one day i might stop communicating about books and start caring for the literature itself) and Christopher Marlowe to relax. I remember /lit/ saying she is amazing and when i saw it for a fiver i had to pick it up. I'll start with your suggestion. I need something interesting and learn about American culture.