Mein Kampf

[Emil Miller]

Mein Kampf is probably more accessible to those who have some knowledge of Germany and its history but it can be read by the more general reader who is prepared to make an effort. It should be remembered that it was written for a broad German readership and is not a scholarly treatise intended for academics; notwithstanding its references to Wagner, Schiller, Goethe and, perhaps unsurprisingly, von Clausewitz. Hitler's knowledge may not have been deep but it was certainly broad and he touches on a variety of subjects contiguous to the more obvious concerns that motivated him.

It has become almost an article of faith to say that Mein Kampf is badly written but if the intention has been to put people off reading it, this would be a pity because it gives the reader a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a man who carried realpolitik and social Darwinism to their logical conclusion and whose rise and fall has shaped the world we live in today.

Much relies on the translation of such a book and Ralph Mannheim points out the difficulties he encountered in his translation due to stylistic differences between German and English. Nevertheless, what is abundantly clear is how Hitler's plans for a National Socialist state are ruthlessly hammered home to the reader and that his use of repetition was probably intentional. It is all there: from the overthrow of the Weimar republic: the establishment of a dictatorship: the persecution and genocide of the Jews: war against France and German expansion in the east. Seldom, if ever, have socio-political aims been more explicitly stated.

Not the least interesting part of Mein Kampf deals with Hitler's geopolitical thinking and its consequences. As a firm believer in the British empire, he thought that Britain's historic antipathy to France would enable Germany to form an alliance with Britain; thus giving him a free hand to wage war with Russia, destroy the communist state and allow for German settlement on former soviet territory. France, that had occupied the Ruhr and exacted ruinous reparations on Germany, would then be dealt with.
By 1939, however, following the German army's march into Poland, the British government viewed Germany as a major threat and declared war. The rest, as they say, is history.

Prof. D.C.Watts' introduction gives an interesting if not entirely coherent account of Hitler's career, from itinerant Austrian painter to German dictator, but in the interest of objectivity my own recommendation to any prospective reader would be to read the book first.

[Lokasenna]

Something tells me this is going to spark a heated debate...

It's interesting that you challenge the old maxim that Hitler's writing style is not very good - of course, German is famously a difficult language to capture the nuances of in translation. What bits I've read of it though, both in translation and in my own rather broken German, would seem to me to suggest that it's reputation is well deserved.

Though you are encouraging people to go off and read it, believe it or not it is actually still quite the bestseller. I was rather alarmed to learn recently, for example, that it is one of the best-selling books in modern India - no bookshop there is complete without a large display of it.

[Charles Darnay]

Something tells me this is going to spark a heated debate...

It's interesting that you challenge the old maxim that Hitler's writing style is not very good - of course, German is famously a difficult language to capture the nuances of in translation. What bits I've read of it though, both in translation and in my own rather broken German, would seem to me to suggest that it's reputation is well deserved.

Though you are encouraging people to go off and read it, believe it or not it is actually still quite the bestseller. I was rather alarmed to learn recently, for example, that it is one of the best-selling books in modern India - no bookshop there is complete without a large display of it.

I agree with you on this. The fact about India is a bit frightening, but not all that surprising.

I can say that I have only read one translation, and have not read it in German - but I have read plenty of German works in translation, and if it was a matter of incompatibility between the languages - wouldn't they are be poor? Or at least most? Goethe and Schiller read beautifully in English - and even Hegel.

That being said, I do agree that this should not turn people away from reading the book. It is an important primary source and for anyone who has an interest at all in how it all happened - it being WWII - it is essential reading.

I also don't believe that people doubt Hitler's brilliance - at least in the early stages. What he did was.....I don't need to pile on adjectives - but you cannot ignore his mastery of exploitation.

[JuniperWoolf]

I was rather alarmed to learn recently, for example, that it is one of the best-selling books in modern India - no bookshop there is complete without a large display of it.


The fact about India is a bit frightening, but not all that surprising.


Why's that? I don't know much about India.

[mona amon]

Though you are encouraging people to go off and read it, believe it or not it is actually still quite the bestseller. I was rather alarmed to learn recently, for example, that it is one of the best-selling books in modern India - no bookshop there is complete without a large display of it.

The part about it being a best-selling book in India is a lot of nonsense. I've never actually seen the book myself, although I'm often in book stores, nor have I ever heard of such a thing. Certain things have an incongruous sort of popularity in India, like Enid Blyton and P.G. Wodehouse, and you'll probably come across a middle aged person or two named Stalin by their misguided parents, but Mein Kampf, no.

I did a Google search and came across only this one article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/5182107/Indian-business-students-snap-up-copies-of-Mein-Kampf.html. To take the claims of one publishing house that claims it sells 10,000 copies a year is ridiculous. 10,000 copies in a country which has a population of 1,170,938,000? What's so best-selling about that, even if it's true?

[Lokasenna]

The part about it being a best-selling book in India is a lot of nonsense. I've never actually seen the book myself, although I'm often in book stores, nor have I ever heard of such a thing. Certain things have an incongruous sort of popularity in India, like Enid Blyton and P.G. Wodehouse, and you'll probably come across a middle aged person or two named Stalin by their misguided parents, but Mein Kampf, no.

I did a Google search and came across only this one article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/5182107/Indian-business-students-snap-up-copies-of-Mein-Kampf.html. To take the claims of one publishing house that claims it sells 10,000 copies a year is ridiculous. 10,000 copies in a country which has a population of 1,170,938,000? What's so best-selling about that, even if it's true?

There was a report about it on Radio 4 - how accurate it is, I don't know, though I'm usually inclined to take the BBC's word on foreign matters. My own quick google search came up with this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8660064.stm.

I remember at the time I found it rather surprising, so I asked two of my housemates about it (they're both from Kolkata), and they confirmed to me that it is indeed a popular book in their bit of India, at least. It was they who told me about the displays of it - I don't think they were pulling my leg..?


I can say that I have only read one translation, and have not read it in German - but I have read plenty of German works in translation, and if it was a matter of incompatibility between the languages - wouldn't they are be poor? Or at least most? Goethe and Schiller read beautifully in English - and even Hegel.

In the hands of a skilled translator, beautiful things can be wrought. What I was more thinking of is the difficulty of translating certain words directly, which can cause all sorts of havok - think about the problems/mysteries/connatations that surround words like schadenfreude, unheimlich and Übermensch, just to give a few prominent examples.

[Emil Miller]

Something tells me this is going to spark a heated debate...

It's interesting that you challenge the old maxim that Hitler's writing style is not very good - of course, German is famously a difficult language to capture the nuances of in translation. What bits I've read of it though, both in translation and in my own rather broken German, would seem to me to suggest that it's reputation is well deserved.

Though you are encouraging people to go off and read it, believe it or not it is actually still quite the bestseller. I was rather alarmed to learn recently, for example, that it is one of the best-selling books in modern India - no bookshop there is complete without a large display of it.

I don't challenge the concept of Hitler's writing style being not very good, it's difficult to tell without reading it in the original, but Ralph Manheim's translation leaves one in no doubt about the author's intentions were he to come to power and it is obvious from early on in the book that he intended to do so. It might seem rather off-putting faced with a book of 600+ pp. but as Prof. Watt writes in his introduction: 'Considered as a contribution to political philosophy, Mein Kampf has no claims whatever to be taken seriously. Considered as a guide to Hitler's vision of history, as providing insight into one of the greatest and most damnable historical figures of the last thousand years, Mein Kampf repays serious study.'

With regard to it's best seller status, Prof.Watt estimates that total sales were between eight and nine million copies during Hitler's life time and it was translated into thirteen languages including Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and Tamil. Interestingly, a pre-war translation undertaken by one James Murphy for the German Propaganda Ministry, was the only unexpurgated version available in Britain and by 1939 had sold 32,000 copies but it was 'later allowed to run out of print' and publication of Mein Kampf was 'suspended' until 1969 when Ralph Manheim's translation (first published in the USA in1942 by Houghton Mifflin and Co.) was published in the UK by Hutchinson.
No further mention of this version is given among the publication data until it appears in its current form under the company name Pimlico, a subsidiary of Random House, in 1993; since when it has been reprinted every year.
Ironically, Random House is owned by Bertelsmann, the German multi-media company, while the book is currently banned in Germany.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What translation did you review, Emil? Was Watt the translator?

[RickR]

I have read all four major translations of Mein Kampf and some of the original German.

It is not accurate to say Mein Kampf is badly written. It was badly translated. Murphy's translation is abridged and Murphy often altered what Hitler said. He also did not understand German very well. He inserted salacious words that Hitler never used in his British version too.

Manheim's version is pretty much a bad joke. It is one of the worst translations of anything I have ever read. His justification for the "difficulties" in making a translation are laughable. He was just covering for his inability to translate. He translated each word individually and ignored the meaning. Any high-schooler who took German could do as good a job as Manheim and get a C-. It amazes me that Manheim even translated dates wrong. Dates are the same in English and German so how did he get dates wrong?

The Reynal Hitchcock translation was a fraud from the start. It is in between these above two in quality but what makes it a fraud is the fact that the "scholars" listed on the credits had little to do with the translation. It was translated by assistants. That explains the poor quality.

The Ford translation is the best I have found. It is easy to read and true to Hitler's intent. It also has historical notes that are necessary to actually understand what Hitler was saying. Hitler made many cultural references that would be lost on the average English speaker without Ford's notes. Some references are quite obscure too like references to William Tell. Ford even caught one reference to just "Tell" which referred to the story. I would never have caught that tiny connection without his explanatory note. Ford also published a book called Mein Kampf: A Translation Controversy. You can google for it and download a free copy which shows the errors in the older versions and explains why the older translations are incorrect.

I found the book fascinating. I do not agree with Hitler's goals, but his descriptions of people and politics are spot on for today's events. It is frightening to read how similar events were then to events now in the USA and other countries.

You can get an idea what Hitler said in any translation but the older ones are confusing. They also edited out some of Hitler's sarcastic remarks and jokes. Yes, he made jokes which were edited out of the old editions because Murphy, Manheim, Hitchcock did not understand what they were reading and did not realize they were jokes.

My favorite part was Volume 2 where he talked about forming the Nazi party. I know some of it is "adjusted" such as his claim he was the 7th member of the party when he was actually 52 or something like that, but it is still interesting to read his version of how it was done.

I think it is worth reading for anyone interested in history or politics.

[mona amon]

There was a report about it on Radio 4 - how accurate it is, I don't know, though I'm usually inclined to take the BBC's word on foreign matters. My own quick google search came up with this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8660064.stm.

I remember at the time I found it rather surprising, so I asked two of my housemates about it (they're both from Kolkata), and they confirmed to me that it is indeed a popular book in their bit of India, at least. It was they who told me about the displays of it - I don't think they were pulling my leg...?

Most probably not. I've never seen any copies in the bookstores I've visited, but that doesn't mean they aren't there somewhere, and they're probably more popular in other parts of the country. However, I'm pretty sure they do not sell more copies in India than in other parts of the world, and by no stretch of imagination can it be called a bestseller.

As for the BBC, I thought they were reliable too, and probably are most of the time, but I thought this article was rubbish. One shop selling Hitler T-shirts and keychains, a Bollywood movie, and a couple of college students claiming that their hero is Hitler, is all the supporting evidence they can find for their headline "Hitler memorabilia 'attracts young Indians'" - making it sound like some widespread phenomenon.

Incidently, the movie mentioned in the article was made and released as Dear Friend Hitler. It was based on a couple of letters that Gandhi wrote to Hitler when he (Gandhi) was in jail, but when the movie was shown in India, they changed the name to "Gandhi to Hitler". Seems like they felt the words 'dear friend' and 'Hitler" in the same sentence wouldn't go down well with an Indian audience. The movie didn't do well, showing what a non-issue Hitler is with most Indians.

[Emil Miller]

What translation did you review, Emil? Was Watt the translator?

Please read my review.


=RickR;1134143]I have read all four major translations of Mein Kampf and some of the original German.

It is not accurate to say Mein Kampf is badly written. It was badly translated. Murphy's translation is abridged and Murphy often altered what Hitler said. He also did not understand German very well. He inserted salacious words that Hitler never used in his British version too.

It may have been for this reason that the German Propaganda Ministry fired Murphy and confiscated the translation before he'd completed it. The current version was compiled from his early draught of the book that his wife subsequently managed to retrieve from Berlin.


Manheim's version is pretty much a bad joke. It is one of the worst translations of anything I have ever read. His justification for the "difficulties" in making a translation are laughable. He was just covering for his inability to translate. He translated each word individually and ignored the meaning. Any high-schooler who took German could do as good a job as Manheim and get a C-. It amazes me that Manheim even translated dates wrong. Dates are the same in English and German so how did he get dates wrong?

Although Mein Kampf was Manheim's first major translation, he had been working previously on translating German technical manuals: no mean feat considering that technical German is practically a language in itself. I did not get the impression that there was anything substantively wrong in his translation. I didn't notice any errors concerning the dates given in Mein Kampf.


The Reynal Hitchcock translation was a fraud from the start. It is in between these above two in quality but what makes it a fraud is the fact that the "scholars" listed on the credits had little to do with the translation. It was translated by assistants. That explains the poor quality.

The Ford translation is the best I have found. It is easy to read and true to Hitler's intent. It also has historical notes that are necessary to actually understand what Hitler was saying. Hitler made many cultural references that would be lost on the average English speaker without Ford's notes. Some references are quite obscure too like references to William Tell. Ford even caught one reference to just "Tell" which referred to the story. I would never have caught that tiny connection without his explanatory note. Ford also published a book called Mein Kampf: A Translation Controversy. You can google for it and download a free copy which shows the errors in the older versions and explains why the older translations are incorrect.

I have checked out the Amazon website for Mein Kampf and the reviews of Ford's book are most illuminating. Some of the 'errors' shown are simply different interpretations that have essentially the same meaning and therefore do not substantially alter Hitler's intention. An example is given of Ford's own tendency to err in that he apparently doesn't know the difference between 'unter' and 'durch'.


I found the book fascinating. I do not agree with Hitler's goals, but his descriptions of people and politics are spot on for today's events. It is frightening to read how similar events were then to events now in the USA and other countries.

There are certain similarities but the governments concerned are just about holding the line and the jury is still out on whether they will collapse under the strain. In which case, there should be some interesting times ahead.


You can get an idea what Hitler said in any translation but the older ones are confusing. They also edited out some of Hitler's sarcastic remarks and jokes.
Yes, he made jokes which were edited out of the old editions because Murphy, Manheim, Hitchcock did not understand what they were reading and did not realize they were jokes.

I don't know if Manheim intended his translation to have amusing passages but I did actually laugh at some of Hitler's withering scorn for his opponents. In fact his description of parliamentarians on pp.340-341 is so funny that I'm thinking of having it printed and framed.



My favorite part was Volume 2 where he talked about forming the Nazi party. I know some of it is "adjusted" such as his claim he was the 7th member of the party when he was actually 52 or something like that, but it is still interesting to read his version of how it was done.

I think it is worth reading for anyone interested in history or politics.]

I would say that it is essential reading for those who want to know why National Socialism came into being and how it was able to gain control of the most important country in Europe.

[Darcy88]

**** Hitler.

[cafolini]

A book to read is not necessarily a book to be read so meticulously or so seriously so as to claim that the insane author is going to teach us WHY national socialism or WHAT the **** it is in his ulcerated mind. I would only read Hitler's farts to divert myself with the flights of his mental illness and learn how much is possible in that area.
Ditto Darcy88. **** Hitler.

[Alexander III]

**** Hitler.


A book to read is not necessarily a book to be read so meticulously or so seriously so as to claim that the insane author is going to teach us WHY national socialism or WHAT the **** it is in his ulcerated mind. I would only read Hitler's farts to divert myself with the flights of his mental illness and learn how much is possible in that area.
Ditto Darcy88. **** Hitler.

The children have arrived !

[Emil Miller]

A book to read is not necessarily a book to be read so meticulously or so seriously so as to claim that the insane author is going to teach us WHY national socialism or WHAT the **** it is in his ulcerated mind. I would only read Hitler's farts to divert myself with the flights of his mental illness and learn how much is possible in that area.
Ditto Darcy88. **** Hitler.

A publisher's note states that Mein Kampf is: "...for students of totalitarian psychology...." but since you obviously know everything about it, you have no intention of reading a book that would clearly be wasted on someone of your intellect as, I imagine, would many other writings on totalitarianism. After all, why bother to read something about the subject when a Pavlovian knee-jerk reaction will save you the trouble?

[RickR]

Here is a quote from page 47 of Mein Kampf: A Translation Controversy(Google for it and you can download the pdf free, great reading)


INACCURATE
Manheim translation(page 313 of First Mariner Books 1999): And side by side
with the coming resurrection, I sensed that the goddess of inexorable vengeance for the perjured deed of November 9, 1919, was striding forth. Thus slowly the hall emptied. The movement took its course.

CORRECT
Ford translation: In step with the coming revival, I could feel the marching of the Goddess of Revenge who would bring vengeance for the treasonous deed of November 9th, 1918. The hall gradually emptied. The movement had started.

ANALYSIS
Manheim shows the incorrect date 1919, but it should be 1918. This error is in the current Manheim edition as of 1999 and has never been corrected.


I also recall a place where there is a 1945 date which should have been 1845 but can't find it now. There are hundreds of such errors in the book. Skip the intro pages and go to the appendix to read these comparisons first. Then go back and read the introduction.
I agree, the Ford edition is not perfect but when compared to older editions it is like comparing a bicycle to a racing motorcycle. Reading through the above book really shows the care he took in creating his translation and how much research went into each line.

Here is another one I liked about a joke missed by Murphy

INACCURATE
Murphy translation:For this reason we declined all suggestions from
various quarters for identifying our movement by means of a white
flag with the old State or rather with those decrepit parties whose sole
political objective is the restoration of past conditions. And, apart from
this, white is not a colour capable of attracting and focusing public
attention. It is a colour suitable only for young women’s associations
and not for a movement that stands for reform in a revolutionary
period.
Reynal-Hitchcock translation: For this reason we had to reject all
suggestions for identifying by a white flag, as was suggested from
many sides, our movement with the old State or rather with those weak
parties whose sole interest is the restoration of past conditions. Apart
from this, white is not a color that carries people away. It is suitable for
associations of chaste virgins, but not for the overpowering movement
of a revolutionary time.

CORRECT
Ford translation: For this reason, we had to decline the suggestion
that we use a white flag. That recommendation came from many areas.
A white flag would have surely identified our movement with the old
State and with those feeble parties whose sole political aim is to restore
the old Empire. Besides, white is not a compelling color. It is suitable
for innocent societies of maidens, but not for rebellious movements in a
revolutionary age.

Ford's Analysis
Murphy missed the joke and tried to make white flag something
relating to the old state flag of Germany. Hitler was actually telling
a joke by saying that opponent political groups suggested he wave
the white flag of surrender. The Reynal translation is technically
accurate but the joke was lost in the translation here too. Only the Ford
translation relates what Hitler was trying to say with humor.
There were actually a series of jokes here. First he rejects the white flag
then he says it was identified with the old state which is a jab at the old
state for surrendering in World War I and surrendering to the Marxists.
When Hitler says suitable for women, he is not being serious as such,
though the color was common in women’s dresses of the day, he is
acting like he is seriously considering it when he is not. Hitler takes the
jest of a white flag and in the last sentence turns it around and uses it to
remind people of the power of the Nazi movement. This is a very clever
twist. He uses a joke made by his opponents to drive home a point of
his own.

I enjoy just reading through his comments on the corrected passages. Funny to me.

[cafolini]

A publisher's note states that Mein Kampf is: "...for students of totalitarian psychology...." but since you obviously know everything about it, you have no intention of reading a book that would clearly be wasted on someone of your intellect as, I imagine, would many other writings on totalitarianism. After all, why bother to read something about the subject when a Pavlovian knee-jerk reaction will save you the trouble?

You would have to be a salivating dog to know so much about Pavlov so as to even go out of the blues to qualify what I said with it.
Hitler was plain insanity from the very beginning. Those who fought against him knew from the very beginning that he had failed. He was not an archetype of totalitarian ideology to be taken seriously.
If you want cases of totalitarian ideologies, study the Japanese before MacArthur made Hirohito confess through the airways that the only divine thing he had was his sake. Take Richelieu, take Henry VIII, take many of the Roman emperors, many of the popes if you want to study totalitarian ideologies.Take Hugo Chavez from Venezuela. Take General Videla of Argentina. Take Generalissimo Franco of Spain.
Germany was utterly ill and Hitler was the leader of the madhouse. Hitler is a case in psychology, not a bit of any seriously arguable totalitarian ideology.
Again, **** Hitler and Co. Case closed. Watch my hammer.

[Emil Miller]

Here is a quote from page 47 of Mein Kampf: A Translation Controversy(Google for it and you can download the pdf free, great reading)



I also recall a place where there is a 1945 date which should have been 1845 but can't find it now. There are hundreds of such errors in the book. Skip the intro pages and go to the appendix to read these comparisons first. Then go back and read the introduction.
I agree, the Ford edition is not perfect but when compared to older editions it is like comparing a bicycle to a racing motorcycle. Reading through the above book really shows the care he took in creating his translation and how much research went into each line.

Here is another one I liked about a joke missed by Murphy


I enjoy just reading through his comments on the corrected passages. Funny to me.

Yes, the date is so obviously 1918 that the eye automatically tends to glide over what is clearly a typing error.
Although it is not overtly stated in the passage where Hitler writes of the design for a party flag, I naturally associated his dismissal of white as a reference to the surrender of what he called the: 'criminals of November 1918' rather than simply being only 'suitable for chaste virgins' clubs'.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The children have arrived !

Yes, no one joke around on this forum, EVER!

[KCurtis]

**** Hitler.

Oh no. Darcy, stay away from this one-read another thread. I only have your best interest at heart.

[Alexander III]

Yes, no one joke around on this forum, EVER!

Cafolini joke? You must be new here.

[Darcy88]

Cafolini joke? You must be new here.

Alexander you simply are not worth it. Respond to my pm or cower. Its up to you. I really do not care. Man up or begin showing me some respect on these forums.

[JuniperWoolf]

Man up or begin showing me some respect on these forums.

:rolleyes: Please, put it back in your pants (alternative suggestion: "lighten up").

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Cafolini joke? You must be new here.
Cafolini wasn't the only person you were addressing, Alex.

[Alexander III]

Alexander you simply are not worth it. Respond to my pm or cower. Its up to you. I really do not care. Man up or begin showing me some respect on these forums.

wait, what just hapened?

And Mutis, I hope you have recieved your reply, apprently no one does joke on these forums

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

. . . Huh?

[Darcy88]

wait, what just hapened?

And Mutis, I hope you have recieved your reply, apprently no one does joke on these forums

Like I said bud - I challenged you in that pm in a gentlemanly and rational manner, so if you are who you act like you are, if you are all about honour, you should accept it. The best metaphor I can think of is that of a duel.

[cafolini]

That's why we have got to get a little help from outside:

As the poet said, 'Only God can make a tree,' probably because it's so hard to figure out how to get the bark on. ~ Woody Allen

[Emil Miller]

As an example of Hitler's style, albeit translated, this what he had to say in Mein Kampf about splinter organisations that tried to ride on the growing popularity of his own party.

Suddenly programmes arose which from start to finish were copied from ours, ideas were put forward which had been borrowed from us, aims set up for which we had fought for years, roads chosen which the NSDAP had long travelled. By every possible means they sought to explain why they had been forced to found these movements despite the NSDAP which had long been in existence; but the nobler the alleged motives, the falser were their phrases.
In truth a single reason had been determining: the personal ambition of the founders to play a role to which their own dwarfish figure really brought nothing except a great boldness in taking over the ideas of others, a boldness which elsewhere in civil life is ordinarily designated as crookedness.
There was no conception or idea belonging to other people, which one of these political kleptomaniacs did not rapidly collect for his own business, and those who did this were the same people who later with tears in their eyes profoundly bemoaned the 'folkish splintering' and spoke incessantly of the 'need for unity', in the secret hope that in the end they would so outwit the others that, weary of the eternal accusing clamour, they would, in addition to the stolen ideas, toss the movements created for their execution to the thieves.
But if this proved unsuccessful, and if, thanks to the small intellectual dimensions of their owners, the new enterprises did not prove as profitable as they had hoped, they usually reduced their prices and considered themselves happy if they could land in one of the so-called working federations.
Everyone who at that time could not stand on his own feet joined in such working federations; no doubt proceeding from the belief that eight cripples joining arms are sure to produce one gladiator.
And if there were really one healthy man among the cripples, he used up all his strength just to keep the others on their feet, and in this way was himself crippled.

[JuniperWoolf]

The best metaphor I can think of is that of a duel.

There are one or two subtle differences between a duel and a facebook squabble. You challenged him to a facebook squabble? Why? Also, what the hell? Is this... is this somehow related to Mein Kampf?

[Darcy88]

I am an alpha male. Alexander is an alpha male. He prods me. There is a code among men that he keeps breaking. He prods, I challenge, he declines and then goes on to prod me again. I have such turmoil in my life right now. I like to sit on litnet and just relax. For some Italian with a superiority complex to look down on me and insult me time and time again is simply not acceptable.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think you should probably just put him on your ignore list, unless you have the means to figure out his identity, hop a plane to Italy, and then kick his ***. I'm sure that'd be preferable, but it sure sounds like a lot of work.

[Emil Miller]

This sub-forum is titled 'Write a Book Review', so unless you have something sensible to say about the book currently under discussion, please carry on your pointless ramblings elsewhere.

[nancybella]

It seems a bit abhorrent to be so fascinated by Mein Kampf, which displays an author with an angry, very aggressive mind, shouting down all the finer considerations in life which a balanced mind is able to take into account.

More than a few pages from a shouting, ranting man, who hasn't a shred of doubt on a whole range of topics - more than a few pages is tedious and predictable - but fascinating?? Mein gott - never mind mein kampf!

The relentless certainty; the absence of even-handed probing and the calm pleasure of a curious mind discovering itself as it uncovers the aspect of life under investigation - the things that make good writing and good reading, the worthwhile substance consisting between any two covers and which makes a book worth making and publishing - such, such are NOT the joys of Mein Kampf, a document reflecting the mind and the man who wrote it.

To like a book is to like the author; and I would not be comfortable liking the company or valuing the ideas of a man who did not respect life. There is no separation of style from substance, nor such a thing as the vicious expression of a good idea. A good idea viciously expressed is not a good idea; it's a vicious idea.

I think the only way to get your point across about such a book is to pick a decent sized passage where you find some sort of merit, perhaps a page in size, with your comment appended as to exactly why this passage is worth reading. And then to say there are many such other passages.

That's a defensible position. Generalities about any specific value the book may have will get you nowhere with Mein Kampf, and rightly so, I think.

[Emil Miller]

It seems a bit abhorrent to be so fascinated by Mein Kampf, which displays an author with an angry, very aggressive mind, shouting down all the finer considerations in life which a balanced mind is able to take into account.


More than a few pages from a shouting, ranting man, who hasn't a shred of doubt on a whole range of topics - more than a few pages is tedious and predictable - but fascinating?? Mein gott - never mind mein kampf!The relentless certainty; the absence of even-handed probing and the calm pleasure of a curious mind discovering itself as it uncovers the aspect of life under investigation - the things that make good writing and good reading, the worthwhile substance consisting between any two covers and which makes a book worth making and publishing - such, such are NOT the joys of Mein Kampf, a document reflecting the mind and the man who wrote it.

A number of eminent historians have been fascinated by Mein Kampf for some, though not all, of the reasons you have stated. It certainly reflects the mind of the author, with a conviction that might be called megalomania or single mindedness according to one's choice of words.


To like a book is to like the author; and I would not be comfortable liking the company or valuing the ideas of a man who did not respect life. There is no separation of style from substance, nor such a thing as the vicious expression of a good idea. A good idea viciously expressed is not a good idea; it's a vicious idea.

If we were to restrict our reading to those writers whom we considered nice people we would be missing some of the finest writing available. One of my favourite authors was a paedophile and promiscuous homosexual who was also a misogynist. During his time he outsold any other writer and was a noted authority on literature.


I think the only way to get your point across about such a book is to pick a decent sized passage where you find some sort of merit, perhaps a page in size, with your comment appended as to exactly why this passage is worth reading. And then to say there are many such other passages.

In my correspondence in this thread I have quoted a lengthy passage concerning Hitler's thoughts on the fragmentary nature of German nationalism throughout the post WWI period. To comment would add nothing to it as the matter is very clearly expressed by the author .


That's a defensible position. Generalities about any specific value the book may have will get you nowhere with Mein Kampf, and rightly so, I think

As your post so eloquently demonstrates.

[nancybella]

Calling in what other historians think, eminent or otherwise, is no argument. You should see that, but you genuinely believe that is an argument. It most certainly is not.

Are you talking about Marquis de Sade? You should've mentioned who you were talking about, unless you don't actually want to engage with me, in which case I wish you the best. But if you do want to engage and don't say, that's dubious etiquette.

My post doesn't eloquently demonstrate anything you suggest, there.

I had already read that quote you gave. I was thinking a longer one was needed. But even that writing's appalling.

I don't say authors who write the books we value are saints. I meant, they are normal and nice and respect life, just like a regular guy. To have a view on life that means something requires a person to have morals, I believe, and decency. That doesn't mean they dont fight with people, or have all the various life that so many of us have.

If you were talking about Marquis de Sade - like I said, you should've said that when you're speaking to someone - he's trash. No one will question his expressive ability and his knack for a story, but because of the view that's clearly on his pages, it means nothing. They contribute nothing that can't be figured out in more respectful ways with the additional joy of genuine insight attached, like Freud's Interpretation of Dreams.

Fascinated by Mein Kampf and Marquis de Sade...When it comes to literary likes and dislikes, opposites don't attract at such extreme ends of the spectrum. The way you say so unashamedly that one of your favourite writers is a paedophile and misogynist - trumpeting it, you are - will you ever read that and stop and think for a minute?

I would like a quote from that author, too, whoever he is, if I didn't guess right.

[nancybella]

'...very clearly expressed by the author' from your Hitler post. It's amazing the way you speak about the man and the book, considering the jumbled jargon he writes and the life of the man. You sound like one of the lost souls from a macabre story. Did he ever express anything meaningful clearly?

[nancybella]

The point is, Miller, I don't know what you can expect from a thread about Mein Kampf. It would be a very strange thread, and a very odd world, if people discussed the clear expressions in Mein Kampf as you do. It's not going to happen communally, as it does for sane books, and that's just as it should be.

It would be a chilling place to be, to be among a group of men and women candidly finding merits in fuming prose which disparages people left, right, and centre, and keeps lumping them into groups, where the whole world, except the writer's small coterie, is out to get him, and where he is a very special chosen man.

Maybe you would not find that a chilling place to be, in such a company. In that case, I shouldn't be spoiling your day by making you angry with my comments. I don't want to have that effect on real lives via the web.

If you have affection and respect for such writing, it's a waste of time to argue against and disingenuous for me to appear concerned, as I'm not. But to let a whole conversation flourish around this topic, I'm not going to watch it and let it be normalized altogether. So, my posts are just a moral footnote to a misguided thread.

[Emil Miller]

The point is, Miller, I don't know what you can expect from a thread about Mein Kampf. It would be a very strange thread, and a very odd world, if people discussed the clear expressions in Mein Kampf as you do. It's not going to happen communally, as it does for sane books, and that's just as it should be.

It would be a chilling place to be, to be among a group of men and women candidly finding merits in fuming prose which disparages people left, right, and centre, and keeps lumping them into groups, where the whole world, except the writer's small coterie, is out to get him, and where he is a very special chosen man.

Maybe you would not find that a chilling place to be, in such a company. In that case, I shouldn't be spoiling your day by making you angry with my comments. I don't want to have that effect on real lives via the web.

If you have affection and respect for such writing, it's a waste of time to argue against and disingenuous for me to appear concerned, as I'm not. But to let a whole conversation flourish around this topic, I'm not going to watch it and let it be normalized altogether. So, my posts are just a moral footnote to a misguided thread.

First let me say that I'm not in the least angry about anything you have written.
My review of the book was in response to a lengthy discussion about it that had occurred earlier in the forum and I thought it necessary to read the book in order to give some idea about it from an objective account of its contents, as a majority seemed to have an opinion without actually having read it.
You appear to be new to this forum as there have been numerous arguments about all kinds of subjects, both literary and non literary, and you would surely have noticed them were you to have visited the site for any length of time.
As with other Internet forums, there are monitors who will close a thread down if it starts getting personal but it is in the nature of things that some people will occasionally take umbrage to the extent that they become abusive.
What is not disallowed is discussion on topics that, however distasteful they may seem to some, make for genuine discussion.

[nancybella]

I read again, second time carefully, that quote. Where is the good writing or the sensible viewpoint? Mr Hitler is trying to account for how small political groups react to larger, more successful groups. I think it's fair to say that this is the idea of the paragraph that an intelligent reader will take, give or take some details which I hope we won't fall into quibbling over.

The account Hitler gives shows his ability to psychologically reason. That's what the passage is, a piece of general psychological reasoning, which is some of my favourite type of reasoning and, when such writing is done well, it's some of the most highly prized writing out there in any age.

So, there are no particular persons mentioned, which can be fine as well. That's not necessary. Other ways of supporting one's point.

What is the atmosphere of the writing? He is man-handling the reader's attention into his view of things, like a person being kidnapped at night, being bungled by ruffians into a cab.

Let me try to demonstrate. Programmes 'suddenly' arise, aims set up that Hitler and his party had fought for for years.

Let me comment: that's all he says. There should be calm reasoning or one or two details - he doesn't need to be a scholar - but there is no support for that huge point. How does he know, how do we know as a reader, how long his party fought for particular aims? A small paragraph could give some evidence. And the other, smaller party: how do we know they didn't have their own slow progression?

One thing you don't get from Hitler is dates and some brief, solid information. That takes a mind who is curious and is attracted to healthy research to feel confident about their ideas.

To try to demonstrate more. -- He talks about the other party having 'nobler alleged motives' and 'the falser were their phrases'. You don't need a good translation to know this is crap writing. The writer uses high-flying words which convey no pictures and makes very aggressive accusations.

It would be unfair to say this, if there were different passages to choose from. But all his writing reads like this, so my point isn't unfair or nit-picky. On the contrary, it's very representative. I feel foolish going to all this labour to find fault with such punch-drunk writing and thinking. Very confident writing, it is, but that is not a virtue here. For the same reason Hitler's confidence was not a virtue.

But I'll try and demonstrate my point just a little more, though I'm weary and this is pointless, but then the thread is a disgrace in its way and needs putting down.

-- Here are the phrases he uses to talk to the reader. This is the so-called fascinating way the man's mind works and the way he hectors the reader: 'in truth a single reason' - when someone speaks to you like that with total conviction in a negative tone, and if they're older than an adolescent and the topic is complicated, you distrust them. Some more phrases: 'later years with tears in their eyes profoundly bemoaned'. I presume these are the 'dwarfish figures' of the other, smaller party he's talking about.

You can see, Hitler is an odd man - 'tears in their eyes profoundly bemoaned'?? It's a grey picture and is also like a funeral where someone's been murdered. Intensely dull: both intense and dull, which creates a terribly claustrophobic atmosphere - but hey, some people find it fascinating, as they do paedophile writers.

'Secret hope' - 'eternal accusing clamour' - 'stolen ideas' - 'thieves'. The writer is depressed, surrounded as he believes he is by people with secret hopes designed to undermine his wishes. 'Eternal accusing' - who lives in a world of eternal accusing. Forgive me, readers of my post, this is extremely boring; Hitler is extremely boring and repetitive. And remember, his whole book is like this; the passage is representative.

Then we're on to 'cripples' and 'gladiators' - what a strange image. And there's something about 'small intellectual dimensions of their owners', which sounds like a lunatic sexual innuendo, but just at the simple expressive level, it has no rhythm to it.

The whole passage is vague and energetic slander. It's like being in the presence of someone with very bad body odour who is coming right up to you, invading your space and talking about the end of the world if you don't pull down your pants immediately.

There is no defending this passage or any other passage of the book. Bring on more passages and prove my point.

[Emil Miller]

I read again, second time carefully, that quote. Where is the good writing or the sensible viewpoint? Mr Hitler is trying to account for how small political groups react to larger, more successful groups. I think it's fair to say that this is the idea of the paragraph that an intelligent reader will take, give or take some details which I hope we won't fall into quibbling over.

The account Hitler gives shows his ability to psychologically reason. That's what the passage is, a piece of general psychological reasoning, which is some of my favourite type of reasoning and, when such writing is done well, it's some of the most highly prized writing out there in any age.

So, there are no particular persons mentioned, which can be fine as well. That's not necessary. Other ways of supporting one's point.

What is the atmosphere of the writing? He is man-handling the reader's attention into his view of things, like a person being kidnapped at night, being bungled by ruffians into a cab.

Let me try to demonstrate. Programmes 'suddenly' arise, aims set up that Hitler and his party had fought for for years.

Let me comment: that's all he says. There should be calm reasoning or one or two details - he doesn't need to be a scholar - but there is no support for that huge point. How does he know, how do we know as a reader, how long his party fought for particular aims? A small paragraph could give some evidence. And the other, smaller party: how do we know they didn't have their own slow progression?

One thing you don't get from Hitler is dates and some brief, solid information. That takes a mind who is curious and is attracted to healthy research to feel confident about their ideas.

To try to demonstrate more. -- He talks about the other party having 'nobler alleged motives' and 'the falser were their phrases'. You don't need a good translation to know this is crap writing. The writer uses high-flying words which convey no pictures and makes very aggressive accusations.

It would be unfair to say this, if there were different passages to choose from. But all his writing reads like this, so my point isn't unfair or nit-picky. On the contrary, it's very representative. I feel foolish going to all this labour to find fault with such punch-drunk writing and thinking. Very confident writing, it is, but that is not a virtue here. For the same reason Hitler's confidence was not a virtue.

But I'll try and demonstrate my point just a little more, though I'm weary and this is pointless, but then the thread is a disgrace in its way and needs putting down.

-- Here are the phrases he uses to talk to the reader. This is the so-called fascinating way the man's mind works and the way he hectors the reader: 'in truth a single reason' - when someone speaks to you like that with total conviction in a negative tone, and if they're older than an adolescent and the topic is complicated, you distrust them. Some more phrases: 'later years with tears in their eyes profoundly bemoaned'. I presume these are the 'dwarfish figures' of the other, smaller party he's talking about.

You can see, Hitler is an odd man - 'tears in their eyes profoundly bemoaned'?? It's a grey picture and is also like a funeral where someone's been murdered. Intensely dull: both intense and dull, which creates a terribly claustrophobic atmosphere - but hey, some people find it fascinating, as they do paedophile writers.

'Secret hope' - 'eternal accusing clamour' - 'stolen ideas' - 'thieves'. The writer is depressed, surrounded as he believes he is by people with secret hopes designed to undermine his wishes. 'Eternal accusing' - who lives in a world of eternal accusing. Forgive me, readers of my post, this is extremely boring; Hitler is extremely boring and repetitive. And remember, his whole book is like this; the passage is representative.

Then we're on to 'cripples' and 'gladiators' - what a strange image. And there's something about 'small intellectual dimensions of their owners', which sounds like a lunatic sexual innuendo, but just at the simple expressive level, it has no rhythm to it.

The whole passage is vague and energetic slander. It's like being in the presence of someone with very bad body odour who is coming right up to you, invading your space and talking about the end of the world if you don't pull down your pants immediately.

There is no defending this passage or any other passage of the book. Bring on more passages and prove my point.

You may think that the writing is poor and that's fine; that's what this forum is for and on the more substantive assessment of Hitler's claims re other parties stealing the NSDAP's ideas it is true that he doesn't give chapter and verse but it is known that there was a good deal of rivalry between nationalist factions at the time. These included such organisations as:

Christian National Peasants' and Rural Peoples Party
Deutsche anti-semitische Vereinigung
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP)
Deutsche Partei (DP)
Deutsche Reformpartei
Deutschvölkische Freiheitspartei
Deutschnationale Volkspartei (DNVP)
Deutscher Volksverein
Deutschsozialistische Partei (DSP) — The so-called "German-Socialist" Party. It was headed by Julius Streicher, and it was also highly organized, despite having a rather small size. In a controversial move, it dissolved itself in 1922 and many of its members entered the (then very new) Nazi Party.
Volksnationale Reichsvereinigung

It is disingenuous to suggest that Hitler wasn't being sarcastic when talking about crocodile 'tears in the eyes' of splinter groups who, rather than helping nationalism were by their refractory behaviour actually weakening it. Hitler's use of the metaphor of cripples weakening the stronger elements is very pertinent in this respect.
With regard to 'sexual innuendo', 'body odour', ' pulling pants down' - these purely subjective remarks are unlikely to be considered as serious comment from anyone who is supposedly making a genuine post on Mein Kampf, a book about which Professor D. C. Watt. Professor of International History at the University of London has this to say: 'Considered as a guide to Hitler's vision of history, as providing insight into one of the greatest and most damnable historical figures of the last thousand years, Mein Kampf repays serious study.'

[nancybella]

Listen, you gave that quote already about your beloved professor; you don't need to be so apprehensive that what you've already written hasn't been read.

My reactions are completely valid points. Things don't need to be couched in heavy terminology to be taken seriously. Literary turns of phrase, or attempts at them, is the most serious-meaning language around. You clearly don't catch that drift at all. The language you favour is the problematic language.

That list you give of German parties or whatever. Why do you give me that?

I've said my piece on this thread. I feel I'm getting sucked into some stunted autistic vortex with the last post I've just read, which poses as some sort of communicative answer, whereas it's mindlessly, chillingly bureaucratic and wouldn't be out of place on Mein Kampf.

I hope sensible readers see my initial posts and that that fights for what's morally right on this thread, instead of someone who takes the strangest pride in being fascinated by writings which are immensely jargonistic, thinks name-dropping professors and where their professorships are located means something, and is a grown-up person lauding as the greatest literature the outrageous writings of a child-abuser. I'm starting to feel dirty engaging further in this thread.

Oh, on a last note, regarding me being disingenuous about Hitler's sarcasm with the bemoaning with tears...First of all, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

I actually completely missed that that was sarcasm, because the writer's tone is so dreadful in the first place, you turn off all your finer antennae looking for things like humour and the shades that writing can convey. So, I genuinely missed that, which is the fault of the writing, not the reader, I'm quite sure in this case.

But I ask you, what did I miss? Sarcasm? Sarcasm is terrible writing. It's irony that's good writing. Sarcasm is failed irony. Sarcastic people are not funny, neither on the page, nor in real life. They're bitter. You're hopeless, mate, you're supporting my point.

That sarcasm comes off as rotten. He's giving out stink and then he starts mocking? The change of tone is that of a strange, strange man. But you love it and invoke your professors to support you. I've to get away from this thread. It's madness. It's like that Edgar Allan Poe story where the crazy people are running the asylum and mimicking the ways of the doctors. That's what this thread is like. I'm making my escape while I still have my sense of what's morally correct. You're in love with the book; the more you speak, the more it comes out. And then your paedophile author. Adieu, sir, adieu!

[Alexander III]

Are you talking about Marquis de Sade?


Literary geniuses who were complete and utter moral ****s:

-Marquis de Sade
-Earl of Rochester
-William Wycherley
-Petronius
-Lord Byron
-Arthur Rimbaud
-Paul Verlaine
-Baudelaire
-Machiavelli
-Alcaeus
-Thomas Nashe
- Christopher Marlowe
- Lermontov
- D'Annunzio
- Ezra Pound (this one is actually debatable - all his friends described him as an incredibly good man, an angel - yet he was all pro the extermination of the jews)
- Thomas Malory

Ok these are the ones of the top of my head, there are many many more.

[nancybella]

Your professor's quote, which you grovel before as an authority: that too is a rubbish quote, with his greatest figure nonsense. Greatness and notoriety are miles apart. And 'repays serious study'. Your beloved professor is using his authority to intimidate laymen with heavy-going language. God knows how badly he writes as well, as few are born to write, and they write with sunshine and lollipops, like all healthy people. You, Hitler, and that professor, and many more like you, are mired in uninsightful, dense terminology. Talentless. Not ture insight. Mere sticks and stones to break bones.

[nancybella]

You're an impressionable reader, Alex, you've to read their lives and works more closely, both in finding what's there and in being sceptical of questionable information. But you seem to read the good things like someone who picks up a tabloid and reads the sensational stories, running off retailing with a delighted sense of shock. Another list, though, another useless response. And your broad, unthinking stroke about literary geniuses - vulgar, idle expressions. You give yourself and your impressionable mind away at every word.

[Emil Miller]

Your professor's quote, which you grovel before as an authority: that too is a rubbish quote, with his greatest figure nonsense. Greatness and notoriety are miles apart. And 'repays serious study'. Your beloved professor is using his authority to intimidate laymen with heavy-going language. God knows how badly he writes as well, as few are born to write, and they write with sunshine and lollipops, like all healthy people. You, Hitler, and that professor, and many more like you, are mired in uninsightful, dense terminology. Talentless. Not ture insight. Mere sticks and stones to break bones.

You're not related to Cafolini by any chance?

[nancybella]

Alex, for you to think you can just drop a list of 'literary geniuses' and that's that. It makes one think you've a puerile grasp of the acuity of other people's independent observations. A philistine sweep of the pen with your literary geniuses and there we go, a subtle truth established. Go back to your books and start again. And stay off those sweeping phrases which express zero intelligence or originality.

One of your favourite writers was a paedophile and a misogynist - really, that remark says all I need to know and it's stupid of me to argue with you further. To say that and think you haven't utterly compromised your judgement to the listener. That is so telling. You must think people have no sense of morality to think they'd listen to you say that and not be offended. You don't show healthy self-awareness saying that and thinking you won't be caught up on it.

You also said that that author was a promiscuous homsexual. That doesn't have to be a vice and is certainly not in the category of a misogynist or paedophile. That you lump in promiscuous homsexuality with those two other morally wrong attributes, that's another telling remark.

But as I say, this whole thread is wrong; a morally wrong thread and I'm speaking out against it. And the likes of Alex's comments, utterly impressionable. He'll listen to you. He doesn't know any better.

[Alexander III]

Alex, for you to think you can just drop a list of 'literary geniuses' and that's that.

You misunderstand me sir, but it is my fault. I assumed you would have extrapolated the obvious thought, which should have followed the reading of the the list, to wit; that if we start judging literature or any art form, based upon the morality of the author - we would not merely loose De Sade and Hitler, we would loose a lot more, we would loose a strong bulwark of beauty, that is an integral and a touching essence of our literary Cannon.

The misunderstanding was my fault, my young and green mind assumed too much, I generalized; I assumed my manner of thought would be akin to everymans thought and thus the extrapolation would be obvious. I should have known better than to assume wiser and more venerable men would have the same childish mental functions, as my little green mind.


It makes one think you've a puerile grasp of the acuity of other people's independent observations.

Indeed I came to the same conclusion myself. I failed to realize that because I think in one way, it does not necessarily mean it is the right way. I ought to question my beliefs more thoroughly and never enter a discussion with a fixed and unchangeable viewpoint. While mountains may be impressive, it was from clay that we built civilization.


A philistine sweep of the pen with your literary geniuses and there we go, a subtle truth established.

Yes you are right, philistines sweep - they don't tumble, nor do they gently gesture, they sweep!


Go back to your books and start again.

Thank you for such a compliment. As all wise men know that failure and restarting are the traits not of the weak but the great.


And stay off those sweeping phrases which express zero intelligence or originality.

Ahh why did I sweep! If only I had signaled through the wink of an eye I could have turned the caricature that I am into a real boy! Alas I am a doomed Pinocchio with no Jimmy Cricket. I accidentally ate him.


Also while many men on these forums have called me: ineffectual, a philistine, lacking in intelligence and character, lacking in imagination, being naive, and also being unpleasant. They usually only do so after having known me for a few weeks. Considering that this is the first discussion we are having. I (forgive me for the blasphemous word which shall appear after the end of the parenthesis) Assume that we have already met, maybe you are cafolini, but your writing style seemed familiar, as the sudden urge to parody it thrilled me - I forget your name, as there have been a great deal of similar gentlemen to you this year whom I have argued with on the forums, so pardon me for not remembering your name, but then again tis a rare specimen of man, who can recall all the whores he has ****ed.

[nancybella]

Alexander, though I disagree with you, I'm sorry for being insulting. Disgraceful behaviour on my part.

[Emil Miller]

- really, that remark says all I need to know and it's stupid of me to argue with you further.


Well I won't say that I'm sorry, anyone who introduces sunshine and lollipops into a discussion on Mein Kampf isn't likely to add anything meaningful to the proceedings.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nancy, you need to chill out, unless you want to get banned (again, I have a sneaking suspicion).

[nancybella]

Banned and sneaking suspicions?? This thread gets weirder.

[Freudian Monkey]

Personally I'd be more interested to read Hitler's letters or his diary than Mein Kampf, although it can also shed some light on the zeitgeist. I recently read Gustaf Mannerheim's personal letter exchange with his family and I have to say that those letter gave me a whole new and insightful perspective of Mannerheim, who has become almost a mythic figure in Finland.

Are there any published works regarding Hitler's diaries or letters?

[Emil Miller]

Personally I'd be more interested to read Hitler's letters or his diary than Mein Kampf, although it can also shed some light on the zeitgeist. I recently read Gustaf Mannerheim's personal letter exchange with his family and I have to say that those letter gave me a whole new and insightful perspective of Mannerheim, who has become almost a mythic figure in Finland.

Are there any published works regarding Hitler's diaries or letters?


There isn't any evidence that Hitler kept a diary but in 1983, the British historian Prof. Hugh Trevor-Roper came into possession of some exercise books that he claimed to be Hitler's diary. It caused a sensation at the time but they were later discovered to be forgeries. The nearest thing to what you are looking for would be be a book called Hitler's Table Talk in which, from 1941-1944, he allowed Martin Bormann to record his personal recollections for publication after the war.
These should be treated with caution but I have just read an extract from the book and it corresponds closely with Hitler's thoughts on Jews as expressed in Mein Kampf.

[Alexander III]

http://www.allmystery.de/dateien/uh67748,1289859843,Hitler_gets_a_gas_bill.gif

[Freudian Monkey]

There isn't any evidence that Hitler kept a diary but in 1983, the British historian Prof. Hugh Trevor-Roper came into possession of some exercise books that he claimed to be Hitler's diary. It caused a sensation at the time but they were later discovered to be forgeries. The nearest thing to what you are looking for would be be a book called Hitler's Table Talk in which, from 1941-1944, he allowed Martin Bormann to record his personal recollections for publication after the war.
These should be treated with caution but I have just read an extract from the book and it corresponds closely with Hitler's thoughts on Jews as expressed in Mein Kampf.

That's unfortunate. I would have liked to read something other than he's propaganda speeches and other highly rhetorical material.

Hitler surely wasn't alone with his thoughts on Jews - it was a different time back then. Antisemitism has been around since the birth of Christianity. Many popes as well as Martin Luther were anti-Semites. It's only natural to feel suspicion toward a minority that has no homeland. The very function of culture is to create social cohesion by separating a group of people from other people and to demonize the otherness that is left outside. There is always going to be such demonized minorities - maybe Arabs as a stereotype, Hamas and Iran can work as contemporary examples of this.

[Emil Miller]

That's unfortunate. I would have liked to read something other than he's propaganda speeches and other highly rhetorical material.

Hitler surely wasn't alone with his thoughts on Jews - it was a different time back then. Antisemitism has been around since the birth of Christianity. Many popes as well as Martin Luther were anti-Semites. It's only natural to feel suspicion toward a minority that has no homeland. The very function of culture is to create social cohesion by separating a group of people from other people and to demonize the otherness that is left outside. There is always going to be such demonized minorities - maybe Arabs as a stereotype, Hamas and Iran can work as contemporary examples of this.

It's true that Hitler made no secret about his hatred of Jews but I don't think it's his most interesting characteristic, the extract I referred to was a facsimile of the original German and just happened to be about Jews. In my view Hitler's geopolitical ambitions are far more interesting than his racial theories when viewed within the context of German history. Like Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte before him, he is a figure of major historical importance who is the major reference point of the 20th century.

[Freudian Monkey]

It's true that Hitler made no secret about his hatred of Jews but I don't think it's his most interesting characteristic, the extract I referred to was a facsimile of the original German and just happened to be about Jews. In my view Hitler's geopolitical ambitions are far more interesting than his racial theories when viewed within the context of German history. Like Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte before him, he is a figure of major historical importance who is the major reference point of the 20th century.

Agreed, although the cultural roots of Nazi ideology are pretty interesting as well.

[Emil Miller]

Agreed, although the cultural roots of Nazi ideology are pretty interesting as well.

Indeed, and that's why Mein Kampf is positive reading for serious students of the subject because in it Hitler outlines the thinking behind his personal beliefs. These included the settlement of Germans on Russian soil and the idea that might is right in which Frederick the Great was, in Hitler's mind, the embodiment.
I don't think it's possible to understand the full scope of Nazi ideology without reading Mein Kampf. I thought that I knew a good deal about him before reading it but it had usually been through the, not always balanced, views of others. The extra insight into his psychological makeup is what has kept the book in constant reprint since it was allowed back into the mainstream.

[Freudian Monkey]

Indeed, and that's why Mein Kampf is positive reading for serious students of the subject because in it Hitler outlines the thinking behind his personal beliefs. These included the settlement of Germans on Russian soil and the idea that might is right in which Frederick the Great was, in Hitler's mind, the embodiment.
I don't think it's possible to understand the full scope of Nazi ideology without reading Mein Kampf. I thought that I knew a good deal about him before reading it but it had usually been through the, not always balanced, views of others. The extra insight into his psychological makeup is what has kept the book in constant reprint since it was allowed back into the mainstream.

A documentary called The Century of The Self by Adam Curtis can provide another perspective on the rise of totalitarianism in Europe. To fully understand the development an ideology one needs more than just an understanding of political history.

[Emil Miller]

A documentary called The Century of The Self by Adam Curtis can provide another perspective on the rise of totalitarianism in Europe. To fully understand the development an ideology one needs more than just an understanding of political history.

I recall seeing this documentary some time ago and it does go some way to explaining the phenomenon of how apparently rational individuals can be unconsciously coerced into irrational behaviour: the mass appeal of unmusical noise that passes for popular music today is a good example. I very much doubt that Hitler had direct knowledge of Freud, as he would not have read anything by a Jew, but he did have an innate understanding of the mass mentality and how to use it to his advantage. But there is another factor at play and that is the willpower that enabled Hitler to reach the heights that he did. What comes across most vividly in Mein Kampf is the totality of Hitler's conviction that the situation of Germany post WWI would only be obviated by a single party state under the dictatorship of the National Socialist party. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight we can see that it was this inflexibility that brought about his downfall.

[Freudian Monkey]

I recall seeing this documentary some time ago and it does go some way to explaining the phenomenon of how apparently rational individuals can be unconsciously coerced into irrational behaviour: the mass appeal of unmusical noise that passes for popular music today is a good example. I very much doubt that Hitler had direct knowledge of Freud, as he would not have read anything by a Jew, but he did have an innate understanding of the mass mentality and how to use it to his advantage. But there is another factor at play and that is the willpower that enabled Hitler to reach the heights that he did. What comes across most vividly in Mein Kampf is the totality of Hitler's conviction that the situation of Germany post WWI would only be obviated by a single party state under the dictatorship of the National Socialist party. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight we can see that it was this inflexibility that brought about his downfall.

Not just the herd behavior but also the total disappointment toward democracy and the individualism that had lead the world into financial disaster. The individual could not be trusted any longer, it had to be controlled and given something higher than a selfish strife to satisfy individual urges. In communism this higher ideal was the classless society, in National Socialism it was the mythical ideal of the German race.

I don't see Hitler's willpower having any major significance in National Socialist Party's success, he was simply in the right place at the right time. In Russia Bolsheviks were not the only revolutionary group that tried to seize power, they just happened to be in the right place at the right time, having the right resources. If Hitler wouldn't have been there, someone else would have taken his place. The German people were frustrated at conventional politics, they wanted change and they would have gotten it in one form or another. In this sense I'm very much a determinist.

[Emil Miller]

Not just the herd behavior but also the total disappointment toward democracy and the individualism that had lead the world into financial disaster. The individual could not be trusted any longer, it had to be controlled and given something higher than a selfish strife to satisfy individual urges. In communism this higher ideal was the classless society, in National Socialism it was the mythical ideal of the German race.

I don't see Hitler's willpower having any major significance in National Socialist Party's success, he was simply in the right place at the right time. In Russia Bolsheviks were not the only revolutionary group that tried to cease power, they just happened to be in the right place at the right time, having the right resources. If Hitler wouldn't have been there, someone else would have taken his place. The German people were frustrated at conventional politics, they wanted change and they would have gotten it in one form or another. In this sense I'm very much a determinist.

This is to misread what actually happened. The financial crisis that gripped the world as a result of Wall Street's crash merely aggravated the poverty that had been inflicted on Germany as a result of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 and which had brought much of the country to its knees through reparation payments. The failure of German democracy to solve this problem was the doorway through which National Socialism marched. Whatever Hitler might have thought about German racial superiority, it is doubtful that many Germans believed in it; they just wanted someone to lead them out of the mess they were in and many were convinced that Hitler was the man to do it.

If you were to read Mein Kampf, you would see that when Hitler joined the party it was tiny and only one of many such organisations whose influence was negligible. It was he who transformed it into the single most powerful nationalist voice in Germany. There is a famous newsreel of Rudolph Hess speaking to a mass audience in which he says: 'Hitler ist Deutschland wie Deutschland Hitler ist.' Mein Kampf shows that this isn't simply rhetoric but a statement of fact in that no other leader in the country could have re-established it as the major world power after years of abnegation. The way that it was done is delineated in Mein Kampf which is an extraordinary declaration of intent.

[Freudian Monkey]

This is to misread what actually happened.


There can be multiple interpretations of course but you are going against Curtis' interpretation here rather than mine. Of course we're all aware of the heavy sanctions that burdened Germany's economy even before 1929 - I might be ignorant but that's almost an insult. :)

Joseph Goebbels said himself that Roosevelt's New Deal was the right way to go - he was very impressed by it. New Deal meant restrictions to free market and stronger centralized government. As you said, democracy had failed in Germany as well as in America. This understanding was part of the zeitgeist.

[Emil Miller]

There can be multiple interpretations of course but you are going against Curtis' interpretation here rather than mine. Of course we're all aware of the heavy sanctions that burdened Germany's economy even before 1929 - I might be ignorant but that's almost an insult. :)

Joseph Goebbels said himself that Roosevelt's New Deal was the right way to go - he was very impressed by it. New Deal meant restrictions to free market and stronger centralized government. As you said, democracy had failed in Germany as well as in America. This understanding was part of the zeitgeist.

Sorry to have misinterpreted your previous post. You are correct about Goebbels and the New Deal, I recall seeing a newsreel in which he compared what the Democrats were doing in the USA with what the Nazi party was doing in Germany.

[Freudian Monkey]

Sorry to have misinterpreted your previous post. You are correct about Goebbels and the New Deal, I recall seeing a newsreel in which he compared what the Democrats were doing in the USA with what the Nazi party was doing in Germany.

It's probably due to all the typos in my text. Thanks for the nice discussion.

[E.A Rumfield]

Pretty interesting if anyone wants to read that.

But before we discuss these new insights and tech*niques let us take a look at the nightmare that so nearly came true in Nazi Germany. What were the methods used by Hitler and Goebbels for "depriving eighty mil*lion people of independent thought and subjecting them to the will of one man"? And what was the theory of human nature upon which those terrifyingly successful methods were based? These questions can be answered, for the most part, in Hitler's own words. And what remarkably clear and astute words they are! When he writes about such vast abstractions as Race and History and Providence, Hitler is strictly unreadable. But when he writes about the German masses and the methods he used for dominating and directing them, his style changes. Nonsense gives place to sense, bombast to a hard-boiled and cynical lucidity. In his philosophical lucubrations Hitler was either cloudily daydreaming or reproducing other people's half-baked notions. In his comments on crowds and propaganda he was writing of things he knew by firsthand expe*rience. In the words of his ablest biographer, Mr. Alan Bullock, "Hitler was the greatest demagogue in history." Those who add, "only a demagogue," fail to appreciate the nature of political power in an age of mass politics. As he himself said, "To be a leader means to be able to move the masses." Hitler's aim was first to move the masses and then, having pried them loose from their traditional loyalties and morali*ties, to impose upon them (with the hypnotized con*sent of the majority) a new authoritarian order of his own devising. "Hitler," wrote Hermann Rauschning in 1939, "has a deep respect for the Catholic church and the Jesuit order; not because of their Christian doc*trine, but because of the 'machinery' they have elab*orated and controlled, their hierarchical system, their extremely clever tactics, their knowledge of human na*ture and their wise use of human weaknesses in ruling over believers." Ecclesiasticism without Christianity, the discipline of a monastic rule, not for God's sake or in order to achieve personal salvation, but for the sake of the State and for the greater glory and power of the demagogue turned Leader -- this was the goal toward which the systematic moving of the masses was to lead. Aldous Huxley

[Emil Miller]

Pretty interesting if anyone wants to read that.

But before we discuss these new insights and tech*niques let us take a look at the nightmare that so nearly came true in Nazi Germany. What were the methods used by Hitler and Goebbels for "depriving eighty mil*lion people of independent thought and subjecting them to the will of one man"? And what was the theory of human nature upon which those terrifyingly successful methods were based? These questions can be answered, for the most part, in Hitler's own words. And what remarkably clear and astute words they are! When he writes about such vast abstractions as Race and History and Providence, Hitler is strictly unreadable. But when he writes about the German masses and the methods he used for dominating and directing them, his style changes. Nonsense gives place to sense, bombast to a hard-boiled and cynical lucidity. In his philosophical lucubrations Hitler was either cloudily daydreaming or reproducing other people's half-baked notions. In his comments on crowds and propaganda he was writing of things he knew by firsthand expe*rience. In the words of his ablest biographer, Mr. Alan Bullock, "Hitler was the greatest demagogue in history." Those who add, "only a demagogue," fail to appreciate the nature of political power in an age of mass politics. As he himself said, "To be a leader means to be able to move the masses." Hitler's aim was first to move the masses and then, having pried them loose from their traditional loyalties and morali*ties, to impose upon them (with the hypnotized con*sent of the majority) a new authoritarian order of his own devising. "Hitler," wrote Hermann Rauschning in 1939, "has a deep respect for the Catholic church and the Jesuit order; not because of their Christian doc*trine, but because of the 'machinery' they have elab*orated and controlled, their hierarchical system, their extremely clever tactics, their knowledge of human na*ture and their wise use of human weaknesses in ruling over believers." Ecclesiasticism without Christianity, the discipline of a monastic rule, not for God's sake or in order to achieve personal salvation, but for the sake of the State and for the greater glory and power of the demagogue turned Leader -- this was the goal toward which the systematic moving of the masses was to lead. Aldous Huxley

This is a balanced view of what happened and underlines much of what has been written in this thread. As it's a quotation I don't know what else is mentioned by the author about Hitler but for those who have studied the subject, it is clear that he was the product of German history and the conclusion of a process that began with Napoleon's dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 and ended with the fall of the Third Reich in 1945, although 'ended' may be somewhat premature because the centrifugal force that Germany became during the interim is again making itself felt in the current European situation.