Mein Kampf Study

[jet57]

Introduction

I wanted to create a thread for the purposes of some study and discussion of Hitler’s Mein Kampf; “My Struggle”. I enjoy collecting old books and great finds, and I came across an American published translation by Houghton Mifflin Compay, Boston, 1940, hardbound. The very first American release when Hitler was at the height of his power. The book includes footnotes of analysis and historical information that aid the reader in interpretation.

What so fascinates me about Mein Kampf, is it is Hitler’s actual thinking, not drawn from a film of a speech or someone else’s analysis of him, but drawn directly from his actual mind. Understanding that the reader can actually see how he did it, what his thinking was on a variety of subjects, particularly Germany, royalty, religion, socialism, Marxism and their part in politics and leadership and of course the Jewish question: Hitler actually does a flip on that subject that rockets to the right and his hatred and how he comes about it and then blames the same sources for the ruin of Germany and Austria. Mein Kampf is truly a relic and I think that anybody who is interested in politics and governance, and how things can happen should read it.

This thread will be in sections; the book is 993 pages with a conclusion, so this will be part one. I’d like part one to go on until it fizzles out and then ahead with part two etc. I’m keeping the book sections small to avoid overloading prompts.
The subject will begin with the next post.

 

[jet57]

1:


Hitler begins his story by outlining a middle class childhood, his father being a civil servant who was very strict and with whom he did not get along. (Alois Hitler himself was born out of wedlock and was married twice producing children in each, Adpolph being his first son). Hitler goes on to tell about his early adulthood, moving to Vienna and being very poor. He was always very interested in politics and government and once he found an avenue of study, he devoured and newspapers and publication he could manage to get.

He begins this study by talking about society at large and how German families are suffering from fathers who drink too much and become cruel and fall into debauchery. And that people need strong leadership to put such men to work and create a better society. Hitler then begins to enter into “the Jewish question” by page 75 and he goes on to say that as a child he had no misgivings about Jewish people, his father never spoke of them with any sort of harsh feelings and that in grammar school there was a Jewish boy whom he came to know out of curiosity, the other kids looked upon the boy with circumspection, but none persecuted the boy. As such Hitler grew into young adulthood not giving the matter much thought.

He moves into ideas on politics, the importance of the State, a single leader and nationalism. (From his writing I glean that the German people proper are nationalists at heart through history and culture being through royalty and religious empire). Social Democracy he says (socialism), will ruin Germany and that the left is Marxist and enemies of the state and that in all social cases there must be personal responsibility. Here Hitler begins to turn on the racial issue: after study on the relationship between society and the press, he comes to believe, and states that the press is propaganda. He concludes through the very same press that the Jewish people are not Germans in the strictest sense. That is to say, they are not nationalists and only concerned with business, some of that business on the lower side being prostitution, the upper side being finance and the third interesting being the media. He see the media now as pure propaganda and concludes that Jewish people only interest besides religion – is money.

We now have a short and poignant opening with which to begin our discussion…


Thanks in advance for your participation.

 

[calamity]

:roll:

 

[jet57]

:roll:

And what sort of response is that? Haven't you ever wondered about such an historical event and what kind of thinking brought it on? It's like Caligula's diary.

 

[OlNate]

And what sort of response is that? Haven't you ever wondered about such an historical event and what kind of thinking brought it on? It's like Caligula's diary.

I think it's an interesting topic, but you understand you've got exactly zero wiggle room here...hehe... Talking about Hitler right now might not invite the most chill discussion. Of course, that might be the best time to have the talk. But I'll hang out with you for a bit.

What would you like to discuss? It would appear that Hitler's problematic view of the world is evident from the start of this book.

 

[jet57]

I think it's an interesting topic, but you understand you've got exactly zero wiggle room here...hehe... Talking about Hitler right now might not invite the most chill discussion. Of course, that might be the best time to have the talk. But I'll hang out with you for a bit.

What would you like to discuss? It would appear that Hitler's problematic view of the world is evident from the start of this book.

Thanks. This isn't a right vs wrong, or what should or should not have happened thing. So by reading part one, what is it that YOU'D like to discuss? what about his thinking? admittedly it's pretty much background, but it's a real window. So whatever grabs you about part one is it... What grabs me about it all is how well spoken and rational it all sounds.

 

[calamity]

And what sort of response is that? Haven't you ever wondered about such an historical event and what kind of thinking brought it on? It's like Caligula's diary.

I can tie it to today.

Hitler was smart enough to build a coalition after winning by a plurality of a minority vote. For a few years, AH truly did make Germany great again. And, that is what made him so dangerous. By the beginning of the end, Hitler had well over 60% of the German people supporting him.

Thank god Trump was too stupid to do that. Seriously. We dodged a bullet. After winning the election, Trump has alienated more people than he brought onboard. Again, thank God for that.

 

[OlNate]

Thanks. This isn't a right vs wrong, or what should or should not have happened thing. So by reading part one, what is it that YOU'D like to discuss? what about his thinking? admittedly it's pretty much background, but it's a real window. So whatever grabs you about part one is it... What grabs me about it all is how well spoken and rational it all sounds.

No worries, that's how I took it.

As for what I'd like to discuss, I'm here to entertain...hehe... I'm good to follow where you lead.

Hitler was extremely charismatic. You don't accomplish what he did without that. He was an incredibly effective populist - he knew how to dig into the hearts and minds of a defeated German people.

The problem with Mein Kampf is that it was written all at once. It doesn't capture the descent into madness that was Adolph Hitler.

 

[jet57]

I can tie it to today.

Hitler was smart enough to build a coalition after winning by a plurality of a minority vote. For a few years, AH truly did make Germany great again. And, that is what made him so dangerous. By the beginning of the end, Hitler had well over 60% of the German people supporting him.

Thank god Trump was too stupid to do that. Seriously. We dodged a bullet. After winning the election, Trump has alienated more people than he brought onboard. Again, thank God for that.

Yeah, okay. But this thread is not about tying Hitler to today or any current political view: I avoided that because I don't want people fighting. What is it about part 1 that grabs your attention? Is there something you want to expand on?

 

[jet57]

No worries, that's how I took it.

As for what I'd like to discuss, I'm here to entertain...hehe... I'm good to follow where you lead.

Hitler was extremely charismatic. You don't accomplish what he did without that. He was an incredibly effective populist - he knew how to dig into the hearts and minds of a defeated German people.

The problem with Mein Kampf is that it was written all at once. It doesn't capture the descent into madness that was Adolph Hitler.

Yeah, I see your point. He actually only dictated it; Rudolph Hess transcribed it. I found that tidbit very interesting: I'd always imagined Hitler with scads of note paper, scribbling away with a pencil, but he definitely knew what he was doing. I researched his historical points on Austria etc and it's all true. What astounds me about his writing is how well educated he sounds. He knew what he doing when he wrote it and it sold MILLIONS.

 

[calamity]

Yeah, okay. But this thread is not about tying Hitler to today or any current political view: I avoided that because I don't want people fighting. What is it about part 1 that grabs your attention? Is there something you want to expand on?

Not really. I have no interest in parsing Mein Kampf.

 

[zyzygy]

And what sort of response is that? Haven't you ever wondered about such an historical event and what kind of thinking brought it on? It's like Caligula's diary.

I read it when I was in my teens and once was enough for me.

 

[calamity]

I read it when I was in my teens and once was enough for me.

Cliff notes on that one were more than enough.

 

[jet57]

I read it when I was in my teens and once was enough for me.

I was always interested in it. My dad and uncle were in WWII, but I never bought a copy until I stumbled across this one. Do you have any comments on the material? We all know what happened, but what do you think about his writing and the things he talked about and the way he wrote about it: how he came to his conclusions...

 

[jet57]

Cliff notes on that one were more than enough.

But, you're not interested in the material in this thread? Why not? I'm curious.

 

[calamity]

But, you're not interested in the material in this thread? Why not? I'm curious.

I am, as it pertains to today. But, you nixed that idea.

 

[jet57]

I am, as it pertains to today. But, you nixed that idea.

What I had hoped would come of this is a more informed discussion of just what you are looking for; I mean that's the ultimate purpose for reading the book and learning about what makes that kind of thing tick right?

 

[swing_voter]

Introduction

I wanted to create a thread for the purposes of some study and discussion of Hitler’s Mein Kampf; “My Struggle”. I enjoy collecting old books and great finds, and I came across an American published translation by Houghton Mifflin Compay, Boston, 1940, hardbound. The very first American release when Hitler was at the height of his power. The book includes footnotes of analysis and historical information that aid the reader in interpretation.

What so fascinates me about Mein Kampf, is it is Hitler’s actual thinking, not drawn from a film of a speech or someone else’s analysis of him, but drawn directly from his actual mind. Understanding that the reader can actually see how he did it, what his thinking was on a variety of subjects, particularly Germany, royalty, religion, socialism, Marxism and their part in politics and leadership and of course the Jewish question: Hitler actually does a flip on that subject that rockets to the right and his hatred and how he comes about it and then blames the same sources for the ruin of Germany and Austria. Mein Kampf is truly a relic and I think that anybody who is interested in politics and governance, and how things can happen should read it.

This thread will be in sections; the book is 993 pages with a conclusion, so this will be part one. I’d like part one to go on until it fizzles out and then ahead with part two etc. I’m keeping the book sections small to avoid overloading prompts.
The subject will begin with the next post.

I think it's more like Hitler's thoughts on what to say to become popular.

How much of the real Hitler is in the book is anyone's guess.

 

[zyzygy]

I was always interested in it. My dad and uncle were in WWII, but I never bought a copy until I stumbled across this one. Do you have any comments on the material? We all know what happened, but what do you think about his writing and the things he talked about and the way he wrote about it: how he came to his conclusions...

I prefer not to think about it. The one good thing that Hitler did was killing Hitler.

 

[jet57]

I think it's more like Hitler's thoughts on what to say to become popular.

How much of the real Hitler is in the book is anyone's guess.

That's why we read it to find out. It IS the real Hitler...

 

[OlNate]

Yeah, I see your point. He actually only dictated it; Rudolph Hess transcribed it. I found that tidbit very interesting: I'd always imagined Hitler with scads of note paper, scribbling away with a pencil, but he definitely knew what he was doing. I researched his historical points on Austria etc and it's all true. What astounds me about his writing is how well educated he sounds. He knew what he doing when he wrote it and it sold MILLIONS.

I think people were a lot more articulate (or, perhaps, verbose) back then...if you want evidence, look at The Wind Through The Willows, and reflect on the fact that it was a children's book. Vocabulary has changed over the years.

I found the following as an interesting historical summary of how the book came to be.

How 'Mein Kampf' Changed the World | Live Science

 

[calamity]

What I had hoped would come of this is a more informed discussion of just what you are looking for; I mean that's the ultimate purpose for reading the book and learning about what makes that kind of thing tick right?

I know exactly what we are looking for. That is why I see it and have been pointing it out for three and a half years.

DUH!

 

[Quag]

I have an old copy of Mein kampf as well. Interestingly mine was printed against Hitlers wishes. It was notables such as Theodore Roosevelt and Albert Einstein supporting its translation and publication because they wanted the world to know just how dangerous he was.
having said that I have tried to read it at leas 3 times and never get past the first chapter because the writing is so bad and rambling.

Perhaps Ill try it again
On a similar note I have some old books by Rudyard Kipling that have a swastika on the spine, of course they are referencing the original use of the symbol not the more widely known bastardization by Nazis

 

[Rexedgar]

I think people were a lot more articulate (or, perhaps, verbose) back then...if you want evidence, look at The Wind Through The Willows, and reflect on the fact that it was a children's book. Vocabulary has changed over the years.

I found the following as an interesting historical summary of how the book came to be.

How 'Mein Kampf' Changed the World | Live Science

“Wind In the Willows”

My mom read me this as a child. I remember it well and tried to read it myself, a few years ago. I was different than I remember. “Toads Wild Ride” was one of my favorite parts as a child.

On a similar note, I ran across a book by a compatriot of Nathan Bedford Forrest, titled, “That Devil Forrest,” iirc. It was written around the turn of the 19th century and the prose was impossible to follow, a century on. The style of writing definitely changes over time.

 

[calamity]

I have an old copy of Mein kampf as well. Interestingly mine was printed against Hitlers wishes. It was notables such as Theodore Roosevelt and Albert Einstein supporting its translation and publication because they wanted the world to know just how dangerous he was.
having said that I have tried to read it at leas 3 times and never get past the first chapter because the writing is so bad and rambling.

Perhaps Ill try it again
On a similar note I have some old books by Rudyard Kipling that have a swastika on the spine, of course they are referencing the original use of the symbol not the more widely known bastardization by Nazis

Yes, rambling is the first sign. We have one of those now.