Yep, I’m doing this. I’ve been catching a lot of flack from guys who hate Hitler and the Nazis and white nationalists about not reading Mein Kampf, while they themselves have read it. Guess that’s like claiming to be a Christian without having read the Bible (or at least the New Testament), or a Muslim without reading the Quran, or a Jew without having read the Torah or Talmud. Well, I wouldn’t exactly define myself as a Nazi, even if others who claim to know me better than myself claim otherwise. But they do have a point. If I’m to have the position of holocaust denier, guess I mine as well as know more about that controversial little book. Plus, it’s a good idea to read it even if I wasn’t one, just to broaden my horizons, or something.
But this isn’t something that you can simply just pick up at your local library and read, especially when the lockdown is in effect. People will look at you funny. Plus there’s the situation pertaining to the version of the book. The various translations, most of which have serious problems with them. Probably why I didn’t bother reading it in the past, because in my research I was made aware of these issues, and couldn’t track down a version that addressed my reservations. But in the recent months, I managed to track down a version that seems to be what I have been looking for. The version I will be reading is translated by Thomas Dalton (Clemens & Blair, LLC), with a dual German/English translation, with German on the left page, English on the right page.
Right from the introduction by Dalton I knew I was in for a treat. He covers the issues with all the previous English translated editions of the work. Dugdale, Johnson, Murphy (Stalag and standard), Manheim, Soskin, and Ford. Issues that originate from Zionist influence from the editor/translator, to being unqualified, to being emotionally compromised. There was often an element of anti-Hitler bias in those translations (except for Ford, who was just simply not skilled enough). From what I’ve gathered, the Dalton version is currently the best one for English speakers. So that’s what I will be quoting from.
So, I’ll go through each chapter, and comment on them. Considering how controversial this work is, this should be fun.
Chapter 1: In My Parent’s House
Hitler states in the beginning not just that German-Austria must be reunited with Germany, but also that any country with ethnic Germans in them (or those of German descent, to an extent) must be reunited with Germany. Because those of the same blood must be in the same country. Well, black people certainly seem to make the same argument when it comes to Africa, even if that’s a statement regarding a continent rather than a country. The first controversial bit is thus:
The German people have no right to engage in colonialism until they have brought all their sons together in one state. Only when the territory of the Reich embraces all Germans and then finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then will the moral right arise to acquire foreign territory. The plow will then become the sword, and the tears of war will produce our daily bread for generations to come.
I guess the idea is, Germany is to be fully reunified (from retaking territory lost from the Treaty of Versailles, or Hitler’s ambition for Austria and similar places), getting everyone of German blood into the same country. Something Hitler did with Austria in 1938. Once that is done, then improve the livelihood of all within. If they become economically unsustainable (thus no assured livelihood), then expand to take territory with resources that will make them sustainable. Funny, Israel seems to be doing just that. The desire to expand to the West Bank, and Palestine, among other potential expansions. The same type of people he came to hate, and who later hated him, end up following the same kind of guideline he laid out for his country. And honestly, it follows the guideline of many countries throughout history. Like China wanting unification via that whole Romance of the Three Kingdoms stuff. Or with some of the annexation Russia does.
While it can be taken to mean this implies his desire for world domination, I’d say it’s more along the lines of typical growth for a nation. Regardless, he also indicates that war is inevitable. In the introduction by Dalton, he states that Hitler foresaw inevitable conflict with Russia, France, and England. I imagine the motives behind the quote will be expanded upon the further I read, such as why conflict would ultimately be necessary, or even unavoidable. I’m also interested with his potential interest with France, as he states his fascination with reading about the Franco-German War of 1870-71.
The later chapter section titled The Struggle for Germanism, he covers a topic that is rather timely:
In this battle over the language of old Austria, there were, as in every such struggle, three groups: the fighters, the slackers, and the traitors.
The sifting process began in school. And it is worth noting that the language-war was waged in perhaps its bitterest form in school; this was the nursery where the seeds had to be watered that were to spring up and form the coming generation. The tactical objective of the fight was to win over the child[.]
I believe he refers in-part to the Treaty of Versailles, but also to “centuries” of separation. How those who have become separated from the German homeland struggle not to lose their own language, and thus their own culture and history. How the schools attempt to conform children into the culture and language of one that isn’t German. Similar to how schools in America today (likely also in the UK, or hell, even in modern Germany) teach the opposite of nationalism, and shame nationalism, while promoting those of other nations and languages. Thus we see that multiculturalism was an issue back then for Germany as well, at least as far as Hitler was concerned. And he pinpointed where the battle for nationalism and one’s home culture is fought at its most fiercest and most significant, at the schools. May the state raise the child as it sees fit. Speaking of which:
What affected us most bitterly was the awareness of the fact that this whole system was morally shielded by the alliance with Germany, whereby the slow rooting-out of Germanism from the old Austrian Monarchy seemed in some way to be more or less sanctioned by Germany herself.
Yep, similar to America today. As if this anti-nationalist sentiment is sanctioned by the nation itself. Because it’s corrupted from within. Those who want Germany to suffer either control those who are in power, or are those in power themselves. Like the school systems in America. Kind of eerie.
Anyway, my favorite part of this chapter is his statements on what history is and how it should be taught in schools. From personal experience, I agree with Hitler completely on this topic:
The teaching of universal history in the so-called high schools is still very unsatisfactory. Few teachers realize that the purpose of teaching history is not the memorizing of certain dates and facts that the student is not interested in knowing[.]
To study history means to search for and discover the forces that are the causes of those results that appear to us as historical events.
It was still more fortunate that this professor was able not only to illustrate the past by examples from the present, but from the past he was also able to draw a lesson for the present.
World history became more and more an inexhaustible source for the understanding of contemporary historical events — in other words, politics. Therefore I will not ‘learn’ politics, but rather let politics teach me.
— p. 61, 63, 65
A lot of history teachers could use this advice. Then again, they might take it the wrong way. After all, one can be biased with how they cover history. I mean, look at the average documentary flick made today. Look at documentaries on the civil war, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and 9/11. Shit, just about everything from recent history to centuries old history can be biased with how its covered, thus forcing a biased form of lesson being taught as a result. Like how slavery is covered, and how they leave out the those who brought slaves to America were Jews (they ran those ships); or that African leaders/warlords captured and sold slaves to the Americas (despite what that show Roots portrays). How it can be framed to promote that very anti-nationalist tendencies that plague schools now, promote white guilt, and so on.
It’s not just about teaching history by utilizing examples in the past for lessons in the present. It’s also about doing so by allowing as many perspectives as possible in the hopes of eliminating bias, so the students can make up their own minds, and learn their own personal distinct lessons from the past event. If I were a teacher, I wouldn’t have any of that multiple choice quiz bullshit, or some homework assignment where you just rephrase the information from a chapter in the history book. Rather, I would have them write an essay (or a mini-essay) covering some past event and how it affects the student personally in the present. And then invite in-class discussion with other students about the topic to ensure multiple angles are covered (which may result in post-class discussion at the behest of the students themselves). The major risk this carries, especially in society today thanks to how far discipline has fallen and how students are taught to act with respect and self-control, is the amount of infighting this would cause. Let alone the screeching, “Reeeee-ing”, triggering, mental breakdowns of all these pansy-ass pussies who can’t handle reality and certain aspects of history.
On the other hand, isn’t that just prime potential for a reality show nowadays? Everyone is watching fucked up people in fucked up situations wining like little bitches on television anyway. What’s one more that also has constructive criticism to go along with the destructive? Besides, don’t we all want to see school kids get into fights? Are we not entertained by that shit?