Mein Kampf Study

[OlNate]

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

And yet, it's also a powerful tool of propaganda and and a muse for authors of human tragedy and human suffering. It's also an important historical reference. I get why some folks want it banned, while others want it preserved and taught. It posses power that few other books, outside of religious texts, ever achieve, with pretty devastating results. To be honest, I'm conflicted as to whether I personally believe it should be banned or taught, and I'm not big on censorship at all.

 

[Jean-s]

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.

You are asking us to give our thoughts on Part 1 which presupposes we have a copy of our own. This is a tall order. On the other hand, you might just want us to comment on your three-paragraph summary which is altogether different, assuming such a summary is possible and that you did a good job.

I found Mein Kampf unreadable as a teenager and I'm told that even German-speakers find it impossible to get through because it is a disorganized mess of political and social nonsense that was doing the rounds at the time. It contributed nothing to philosophical or political knowledge and, contrary to your opinion, it does not strike the reader as coming from the mind of an educated person. In reality, Adolf Hitler is not known for his writing but as an orator. For the Nazis, a stirring speech was far superior to books. They were good at burning books and had Mein Kampf been tossed on the bonfires nobody would have missed it.

 

[stevecanuck]

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!

You are being unnecessarily rude, and even a little hostile. Do you not know where the door is?

 

[Jredbaron96]

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.

What I gleamed most from Mein Kampf when I read it was how utterly amazed I was by the stark difference in Hitler's oratory skills versus his writing ability. I didn't think it was possible to be so good at one thing and suck so bad at another.

 

[Quag]

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

I seriously doubt the person you are referring to could actually write a book.Getting one ghostwritten doesn't count

 

[NWRatCon]

I've never gotten through more than a smattering of it, and don't intend to alter that condition. As friend Nate observes, I too dither between wanting it known and having it burned. Hitler was most assuredly a sociopath, but my fascination with abnormal psychology is shallow. What I do find interesting is not his garbled political thoughts, cribbed poorly from Nietzsche, but his appeal to a wide following. There lessons for the protection of human kind can be gleaned. And, yes, they have contemporary application, because that mindset obtains within a swath of our own population.

 

[gulfman]

I can't believe I've never read Hitlers book.I'm pure German.Blond hair,blue eyes,aquiline nose.Some day I might read it.

 

[calamity]

I can't believe I've never read Hitlers book.I'm pure German.Blond hair,blue eyes,aquiline nose.Some day I might read it.

I'm waiting for the audio version, in the original German.

 

[zyzygy]

I can't believe I've never read Hitlers book.I'm pure German.Blond hair,blue eyes,aquiline nose.Some day I might read it.

And then invade Europe!!

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I'm waiting for the audio version, in the original German.

If you can find an audio version read by Hitler himself, let us know.. lol.... I heard it's much better than the version read by Hess.

 

[SmartCat]

I read Mein Kampf years ago, and I have read from it since. Hitler initially felt sympathetic toward Jews. It was only when he failed in his efforts to become an artist and an architect that he began to hate them. He was in the market for someone to hate. In Vienna he frequently saw Jews who were successful artists and architects. He chose to hate Jews. Antisemitism has been called "the socialism of fools." It combines the left wing politics of envy with right wing racial and ethnic bigotry.

When I read Mein Kampf the first time it was easy for me to feel condescending about Hitler's hatred of the Jews. No one seemed to think that way any more. Now I am alarmed to find Hitler's arguments on the internet. Many white men blame "the Jews" for what has gone wrong in their lives, and for trends in the United States that they do not like.

White men who are angry about their lack of financial success are often reluctant to direct that anger to those of their ethnicity who are successful. They think that sort of hate would mark them as resentful losers. They find it easy to hate rich Jews. Their hatred of rich Jews segues to hatred of all Jews, some of which are poor. A stagnant economy breeds Antisemitism the way raw sewage breeds bacteria.Hitler rose to power when the German economy was stagnant. For white blue collar workers in the United States the economy has been stagnant since the inflationary recession of 1974. That is why Antisemitism resonates.

Hitler wrote Volume I of Mein Kampf in 1924. From passages in the book it is clear that he intended to conquer Russia when he came to power, to displace the Slavs, and to replace them with German settlers. That is the only justification I can think of for the Bolshevik takeover and for the tyranny of Joseph Stalin. It is not clear to me that a less tyrannical government than the Soviet government under a less tyrannical leader than Stalin could have defeated the German invasion. Stalin make mistake. Nevertheless, he succeeded where Czar Nicholas II failed.

 

[NWRatCon]

There is little question that totalitarianism in various forms is an effective method for organizing a society for warfare, and controlling dissension. It is not, however, an effective or efficient method of governing, especially if personal autonomy is considered a social benefit. As they said of Mussolini: at least he made the trains run on time. But the cost was dear.

 

[Court Jester]

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 haven't read anything from the book since I was in high school as part of logic/critical thinking 101 course. What I mostly remember was that Hitler's arguments about his personal struggle and the path for Germany was basically one long boring argument reducing everything to the absurd meanderings of his twisted mind. To me he came off sounding like a victim--- basically like a modern liberal progressive democrat today.

 

[jet57]

I haven't read anything from the book since I was in high school as part of logic/critical thinking 101 course. What I mostly remember was that Hitler's arguments about his personal struggle and the path for Germany was basically one long boring argument reducing everything to the absurd meanderings of his twisted mind. To me he came off sounding like a victim--- basically like a modern liberal progressive democrat today.

You are on another forum and produce the very same type; you will be ignored here as well.

 

[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.

I think all of what's in the book is authentic to Hitler's true thinking. for instance in part 2 he talks about a one leader solution, how socialism and social democracy (socialism) are bad for the nation of Germany/Austria. He also discusses his disdain for Marxism as part of a Jewish plague. These things were in his beer hall and street speeches as well. ON the Jewish question, in part one, Hitler does a complete flip into hate for the church and for the Jewish as propagandists and market runners who have no sense and will never have any sense of nationhood i.e. Germany.

Having read a great deal on The Third Reich and having seen his speeches in documentaries, he capitalizes on the already present anti-Semitic nationalism sweeping Germany/Austria. He tells his own story on it and knowing what I know, it sounds just like everything he said and did.

 

[jet57]

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

It is an interesting read; thanks. Two very interesting things come to mind to show the ignorance of the Their Reich and what German's learned to love: 1, Semitic - is a set of languages, not a race, and 2, as for Aryans, Thomas R Trautman's book Aryans and British India, explains in very dry detail that it was British archaeologists (the world authorities of the 19th century) changed findings of a common linguistic root into the "white race"...

Vocabulary and the spoken language in older times, even in this country had a much more specific word choice, read - better vocabulary, as do the English over Americans and as with all languages over time, short cuts and slang come in to broaden the spoken word into more emotional contexts.

Hitler's book is one painful wall of text after another, but I maintain that having Caligula's diaries would be just as interesting to the historian.

 

[jet57]

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!

Don't you think that being able to place it exactly and seeing it in it's true context can help your argument? For instance, Hitler mentions specifically "personal responsibility". There are other tags in his writing as well. What he says about Marxism for instance, the left in general and specifically is counter to what some of our "conservative colleagues" would have you believe. THAT in itself makes Mein Kampf a valuable reference source.

 

[Court Jester]

You are on another forum and produce the very same type; you will be ignored here as well.

What other forum am I on? You must have me confused with some other intelligent person somewhere else.

 

[jet57]

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

I think you mean FDR, not Theodore. Yes smart people wanted that book published so that everybody could get an understanding of what was going on. Let's not forget that Adolph made Time's "man of the Year" cover... Hitler's works programs almost modeled FDR's New Dealism. I hope you do take up reading it again; the more educated people we have the better off we'll all be.

 

[jet57]

And yet, it's also a powerful tool of propaganda and and a muse for authors of human tragedy and human suffering. It's also an important historical reference. I get why some folks want it banned, while others want it preserved and taught. It posses power that few other books, outside of religious texts, ever achieve, with pretty devastating results. To be honest, I'm conflicted as to whether I personally believe it should be banned or taught, and I'm not big on censorship at all.

Satanism is alive and well, and those who are going to believe it will believe it - full stop. Shoving things underground will only drive mystique and attraction. Keeping it above ground and available is the only way to get people to understand it and watch for it: freedom isn't free; you have to work for it.

 

[jet57]

You are asking us to give our thoughts on Part 1 which presupposes we have a copy of our own. This is a tall order. On the other hand, you might just want us to comment on your three-paragraph summary which is altogether different, assuming such a summary is possible and that you did a good job.

I found Mein Kampf unreadable as a teenager and I'm told that even German-speakers find it impossible to get through because it is a disorganized mess of political and social nonsense that was doing the rounds at the time. It contributed nothing to philosophical or political knowledge and, contrary to your opinion, it does not strike the reader as coming from the mind of an educated person. In reality, Adolf Hitler is not known for his writing but as an orator. For the Nazis, a stirring speech was far superior to books. They were good at burning books and had Mein Kampf been tossed on the bonfires nobody would have missed it.

The book is one painful brick of one wall of text after another, I will surely agree on that, and teenagers are not the best audiences unless they're writing papers. I have presupposed that people have their own copies, but for those who do, they read my synopses and refer to their copies for a fuller understanding. I'm keeping the parts short by hitting the highlights, for instance Hitler's struggles in Vienna for jobs and food and that sort of brooding is just not important to the point so I don't include it. I don't want to replace on e wall of text with another... I never said btw that Hitler was educated; I said he sounded educated and lucid which is quite probably why the book did so well upon its release to the German/Austrian people, and it was treated quite seriously when it was released here which was long before anybody really knew what was going on in Europe.

You may be right that nobody would have missed it, but I would argue that nobody would have been able to watch out for it either.

 

[jet57]

What other forum am I on? You must have me confused with some other intelligent person somewhere else.

You know exactly and we're not allowed to say here, so your trolling will now just be ignored.

:2wave:

 

[jet57]

What I gleamed most from Mein Kampf when I read it was how utterly amazed I was by the stark difference in Hitler's oratory skills versus his writing ability. I didn't think it was possible to be so good at one thing and suck so bad at another.

The book was actually written by Rudolph Hess: the two were in prison together. The manuscript left with both of them and went to a waiting publisher. It is one yawn after another, that's for sure, but most manifestos are just rambling wordy sentences strung together.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

1:

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.

I used to have a copy many years ago and I only got through the first few pages, then put it down in disgust.
I should have read it cover to cover, but I was seventeen at the time, and of course interested in much more contemporary things. In the intervening years I've managed to read a few segments published online.

Tell me, are there or are there not numerous references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in that book?
It seems that the Protocols influenced him heavily, just as they did Henry Ford, just as they influence the countless modern day Trumpers who screech incessantly about "George Soros!!1!!!!11!!!!".

 

[jet57]

I've never gotten through more than a smattering of it, and don't intend to alter that condition. As friend Nate observes, I too dither between wanting it known and having it burned. Hitler was most assuredly a sociopath, but my fascination with abnormal psychology is shallow. What I do find interesting is not his garbled political thoughts, cribbed poorly from Nietzsche, but his appeal to a wide following. There lessons for the protection of human kind can be gleaned. And, yes, they have contemporary application, because that mindset obtains within a swath of our own population.

But, Hitlers abnormal psychology, but his appeal affected the world in a terrible and unforgettable way didn't it. By the way, it was Nietzsche'
s sister who introduced his writing to Hitler. She interpreted it differently and that that the Übermensch was the perfect match for a true Aryan...

On your idea of protection, you are exactly right. I have also read Heinz Höhne's The Order of the Death's Head, which tells the story of exactly how the SS built itself into the monster that it was and quite under everybody's nose and by the time everybody noticed, it was too late.