Indian copy of Murphy translation
Reynal and Hitchcock's 1939 or 1940 edition.
British edn of Murphy's translation. Approval may have been withdrawn.
Adolf Hitler (and other?): Mein Kampf
Longish review warning! This two-volume, not very coherent, look at experience, theory, will, and practical politics in post-World War I Germany is an important document in Jewish studies. I give this five stars despite the evidences of inconsistency. This link to David Irving's site has an enormous miscellany of information on Hitler, both public and private.
I hadn't even considered reviewing this two-part book until I found a copy in a (highly profitable) 'charity shop'. The cover design is as shown in the top left; it's by an Indian publisher, Jaico, in Mumbai, printed in Delhi; copied, though it doesn't say so, from James Murphy's translation, with Murphy's own introduction and notes, written, apparently, in the reassuringly English town of Abbotts Langley, in Feb 1939, and published in March 21st 1939, by Hurst & Blackett, about six months before Neville Chamberlain and Eduoard Daladier jointly declared war on Germany, supposedly to help Poland. (Many British people are unaware of the fact there was a joint declaration with France). Hurst & Blackett also published Benito Mussolini's autobiography in 1937, translated as My Life.
Publishing History. Different editions in red.
My Indian paperback says it was first published in 1988 (was there some 50-year copyright rule?) and by 2011 had been through 53 impressions, all presumably with the same typos ('Stage' for State', 'hate' for 'have', '1' for 'I', 'polices' for 'politics', 'Walknstein' for 'Wallenstein', '1948' for '1848' and many many more); it may have been scanned with early OCR equipment. I've tended to refer to chapters, rather than page numbers, since page numbering may differ between versions. The only other pre-WW2 English language translation I've been able to find is a 1933 abridgement by E T S Dugdale in Britain, called 'My Battle' in the USA and 'My Struggle' in Britain. An anonymous Wikipedia entry states that Dugdale and his wife 'were active in the Zionist movement', the wife being the niece of Lord Balfour, a British aristocrat intermarried with Jewry. It's a very safe inference that the result must have omitted much Jewish material.
Murphy's translation was published in 1939 in the USA by Houghton Mifflin. I haven't been able to find information on translations into French or other European mainland languages, or into (for example) Turkish. After 1945 the book was banned or not published; I believe it was banned in France and may still be. A typical journalistic comment online is 'Officially, the book cannot be bought in Germany, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland, but is readily available in Russia, Romania, the United States and the United Kingdom.' All this is an important commentary on the power of organised Jewry; a serious two-volume work was left untranslated for almost fifteen years, even though war was on the horizon. It's coincident with Internet that Mein Kampf has been translated again, and Hitler's speeches have started to become more generally known and the whole pre- and post-Second World War propaganda structure has started to erode and crumble.
Since writing this review I found two other editions: firstly, a Houghton-Mifflin edition copyrighted 1939. There may be differences between 1939 and 1940, to do with US entry into the Second World War. It is usually called the Reynal and Hitchcock edition of Mein Kampf (the link is to an archived version). It has ten 'Editorial Sponsors', possibly advisors. I may as well list them: John Chamberlain, Sidney B. Fay, John Gunther, Carlton J. H. Hayes, Graham Mutton, Alvin Johnson, William L Langer, Walter Millis, Raoul de Roussy de Sales, and George N. Shuster. The book states it is 'fully annotated'; a word count shows it is a bit more than 20% longer than other unexpurgated versions. I haven't checked the quality of the annotations, but on the face of it this translation may be the best for most English speakers.
Secondly, another edition is a translation by Ralph Manheim (link to my notes, below; NOT Mannheim), apparently made in 1943, with an introduction dated 1969 by Donald Cameron Watt, then a 'Reader in International History' at London University. The publisher, Hutchinson, was 'in association with' Hurst & Blackett, of the abridgement by Dugdale in 1933.
A republished older (wartime) edition is advertised on www.hitler-library.org as 'A very rare version of this official Nazi English edition ... republished for the first time since it was printed by the Nazi government and is available here. ... The Nazi version is filled with grammar errors, spelling errors, and astonishing punctuation errors. This printing preserves every error exactly as it was published in Germany. Nothing has been altered.' This appears to be similar to the 'Stalag Edition' of Ostara, below.
I doubt whether the book had much impact on the British prisoners, as of course it deals mostly with Germany, the Great War, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and similar topics, many from the nineteenth century. Hitler, or the NSDAP, might have included material on the British Empire and India, the USA, Japan, the Fed, Jews, Moslems, oil, gold, sabotage by Jews in Germany, the start of the Great War; but most importantly the effects of German control of finance in making Germany wealthier. But he ignored his own advice on the importance of propaganda. See my checklist of omissions, below.
Michael Ford's Translation. Unknown quantity?
Ostara's Stalag Edition (for POWs).
Hitler-library.org advertises yet another translation, by Michael Ford. Ford has a free online 200-page e-book, listing some errors in other translations. To get a feel for variations in translations, this is worth a look. Remember that Mein Kampf sold in huge numbers, so there's no controversy over the original wording in German. However, Ford's use of 'Holocaust' suggest his translation may nonetheless be misleading, or pro-Jewish propaganda, as some Amazon reviews claim. His version includes explanatory notes, which certainly appear useful—for example, a reference to 'Love's Labour's Lost'; events '600 years ago'; individuals, towns, proverbs, and so on. Read his 200-page account (link above) to judge these notes. They may be excellent; or they may be Wikipedia level—I haven't seen that edition.
And Ostara Publications republished (in January, 2014) a little-known 'Stalag Edition', an approved English-language translation which they say was printed from 1937 to 1944, for distribution to English-language readers in Stammlager; I don't know whether anti-NSDAP prisoners before the Second World War were counted as 'prisoners of war'. Here's the advertising page for the Stalag Edition on Ostara's website). Ostara claim this edition is longer, and does not have large chunks censored out. But this claim seems untrue; word counts show that Murphy's translation and the official NSDAP book for prisoners-of-war are about the same length, about 270,000 words. There are occasional errors in wording, such as 'reign' in place of 'resign', in addition to a sprinkling of punctuation errors.
As a bit of retrospective scene-setting, note that Adolf Hitler was born in 1889 in Braunau-am-Inn (i.e. Braunau on the river Inn). He was therefore about 25 through 30 during the First World War, and about his mid-30s when these volumes were written. This small town was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a joint and rather ramshackle empire with two 'Emperors', and which impressed Hitler in a negative sense, as being something like what could be called 'multicultural'. Incidentally, several currencies circulated side by side, something that influenced Friedrich Hayek of 'The Road to Serfdom'. Austria, or Österreich, was for about a millennium something like a border state against Islam. This east Reich, or eastern realm, or east Mark or March (a word now most familiar in Tolkien's fiction), like lands to the east of Prussia, had German populations amid Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and others. These eastern areas lacked obvious geographical boundaries such as mountain ranges and sea barriers, inviting migrations, and imprecise boundaries: Poland especially fluctuated in size, and Lithuania even more so. Sweden was another country which expanded hugely, under Gustavus Adolphus, at the time of the Reformation, mostly because of French money. These peoples had histories and mythologies and stories which were partly propagandist: German examples include German prehistory and mythology, German resistance to Rome, Charlemagne's 'Holy Roman Empire', Huns from the east, the Reformation with the devastating Thirty Years' War, Turks at the gates of Vienna, and Napoleon. In view of the fact that the history of Napoleon was, in Britain, throughout the 19th century, censored and manipulated, it must be the case that his effects were censored and lied about even more on the European mainland. Note that Germany, unlike France which was largely centralised on Paris since Chauvin, was made up of numerous principalities, each more or less independent; Bismarck is associated with unification, and war with France, establishing the 2nd Reich. German and French principalities had fought for centuries; united Germany, like Britain at a similar period, was more impressed by their recent victories than these deserved taking a long view. Note that Jewish history is deliberately kept obscure: it's likely that fraud and theft and murder, changes of identity, and flights to other areas inhabited by Jews, had gone on for centuries before modern times. Thus Roth schild (Red Shield) was Bauer in the 18th century; but what names did such people use in the past?
Top of page
Mein Kampf in the original edition (German, presumably printed in black letter typeface) was supposedly dictated to Rudolf Hess, I presume as a typescript, though this has been denied. Alfred Rosenberg and Emil Maurice have been suggested as contributors. David Irving says it was 'written only partly by Hitler'. There seems to be no way to separate out the possible adjustments made to Hitler's words. Volume 1 was written while Hitler was imprisoned in Bavaria: there was a separatist Bavarian movement against Prussia (i.e. Roman Catholic south vs Protestant north), no doubt encouraged by Jews, which was 'about to become fact'; Ludendorff and Hitler opposed it in November 1923, with a group of men, of whom 16 died. In November 1923, the NSDAP was forbidden, and in February 1924 Hitler was sentenced to five years, though he was released in December 1925 after which the 2nd volume was published. It's not clear to me how much access Hitler and Hess had to documents and records during the writing process: a few names are mentioned but solid facts are somewhat thin. There was some wrangling over the title. Bear in mind that the book (which went on to sell in large numbers up to wartime) may well have been expected to remain relatively obscure. However that may be, after its success it seems to have been left unrevised. (I found there's a later translation of Mein Kampf by Ralph Manheim, introduced by D C Watt, which specifically claims to include all changes in the second edition: there are very few of these).
Top of page
Impact and Reviews It's remarkable how few serious reviews the book received; or perhaps they are censored and/or avoided. George Orwell's review, printed in March 1940, shows he missed most of the important material. Orwell all his life was run by Jews; his publishers were all Jews, and it must be questionable whether he was directed which lines to take, for example in the Spanish 'Civil War'. Necessarily, he had to say Hitler eventually wanted war with England (otherwise why the 'phoney war'?) despite Hitler offering peace terms and wanting alliance with Britain. Another odd passage is: Hitler has said to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.' I don't know if anyone believed this, but perhaps it may be related to Churchill's May 1940 repeated phrase "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat" meaning of course "I have nothing to offer you ...'
J G Ballard, the surrealist novelist, wrote a curious Freudian space-filling review of Mein Kampf in 1969, with much emphasis on uncleanness and bodily functions and so on, pointing out that much of Hitler's thought was biologically based. Possibly Ballard thought people were machines or robots?
For these reviews and much more comment, click old reviews of Mein Kampf.
Top of page
Stylistic Note on Mein Kampf: many commentators go out of their way to describe Hitler's writings as crude, uneducated, badly-worded, violent, full of swear-words, and so on; these lies are a deliberate part of demonisation. The use of German in the Austro-Hungarian Empire was different from that in Germany. As a handy comparison, we might compare American English, with multiple Jewish vulgarisms, and influences from Spanish and 'ebonics', with English as it is in England. Expecting English-style English from (say) Eustace Mullins or (say) US Presidents or (say) Jews like Kissinger would seem to be about as sensible as expecting High German from Hitler. Analogous comments apply to discussions of Hitler's speeches.
Top of page
Hitler as a Great Man and Friend of the Common Man and Woman: Comparison with Nero by 'mincuo' (Italian?) is in the off-topic discussions of the nuke lies site. Here's a slightly edited extract:
The Emperor Nero was the Hitler of the ancient world, the ancient Satan. A lot of the Hitler demonization was imitated from the demonization of Nero. Fire, flames, extermination, an artistic madman, cruel, paranoiac. You've been told Nero burned Rome, murdered ten of thousands of Christians, crucified them, set lions on them in the Circus Maximus, while he played the lyre. All that is a bunch of lies, but the books afterwards were written by historians who were Christians or the Aristocratic class, and strong enemies of Nero. In fact, among other things, Nero made two great reforms. One was a monetary reform, the other was a fiscal reform. Both were for the people and against the aristocratic class. Nero took away from aristocrats a great part of their privileges in collecting taxes, giving permits, concessions, contracts and so on. (Two small examples: one commercial ship contained at that time up to 10,000 tons of say of wine, grain, oil... The permit to import and deal given by the Aristocratic bureaucracy to a trader gave them some 25% of the earnings. Another example. Roman people didn't live in the beautiful houses (domus) you have read in the school books. Only 1400 or 1500 owners with their families and slaves lived there. There were 1,200,000 - 1,600,000 Roman citizens and they lived (paying a rent, not as owners) in the "insulae" i.e. six, eight, and often ten-storey-houses, or even 14 storey-houses, like the "Insula felicles". There was an immense speculation at that time. You can understand the value of the building permits given by the Aristocrats. Even when there was the famous fire in Rome, Nero taxed them and made a requisition of 1/5 of their grain to help the population, then fixed strict rules for the new buildings and so on. You can understand how many enemies he had. After his death (64 A.D.) the demonization began. Every book speaking even a bit objectively was removed. But notwithstanding the heavy propaganda, the Romans continued to preserve some memory. For more than 1,000 years every 9 June, the day of the death of Nero, a great mass of people brought flowers on the (presumed) Nero mausoleum, ending only when the Pope Pasquale ordered in 1100 A.D. to destroy the grave and to build a chapel. (It subsequently become a famous Church in Rome: "Santa Maria del Popolo").Top of page
The volume and chapter layout is as follows; I've added a few notes of explanation:
Volume I: Title translated as 'A RETROSPECT' (published in 1925 in German). The twelve chapters are:
I: IN THE HOME OF MY PARENTS/ II: YEARS OF STUDY AND SUFFERING IN VIENNA/ III: POLITICAL REFLECTIONS ARISING OUT OF MY SOJOURN IN VIENNA These early chapters deal with Hitler's account of his life from his birth in 1889, and both his parents' deaths (father 1902, mother 1905), after which he moved to Vienna, aged about 16 through 22. His father is described in captions to photographs as a violent drunken official, and his mother as gentle, but without supporting evidence. He moved to the big city; but failed to be accepted to study drawing; he was interested in architecture; though his book in thin on technical architectural terminology. He claimed to have read fairly widely, though again there's not much evidence for this. He mentions no German 'anti-Semitic' writers such as Wilhelm Marr, or (much earlier) Eisenmenger, and doesn't seem acquainted with Talmudic material; but of course he may simply have omitted it or not have had access to check his statements. He claimed to have been poverty-stricken, and to have worked with people from what he and most people regarded as low strata of society. He also noted the weaknesses of the 'Dual Monarchy' and drew many lessons from the chaos of Joseph II and Germans and pan-Germanism, the Hohenzollen branches and Habsburg dynasty and Slavophiles and and Hungarians, Parliament with its two chambers, Czechs, Poles, Ruthenians, Serbs, Croats and others, Galicia, Herzegovina etc, Roman Catholics (and Protestants to the north), Christian Socialists, and Jews and so-called Social Democrats. These all made their impressions on Hitler; he described the whole as 'a great empire' although by comparison with many territories (such as the USA, China, and Russia) it was small.
Hitler found that Jews dominated in prostitution in Vienna.
IV: MUNICH 1912 'At last I came to Münich, in the spring of 1912'. No reason is given. It struck him as Germanic: '... the marvellous wedlock of native folk-energy with the fine artistic spirit of the city, that unique harmony from the Hofbräuhaus to the Odeon, from the October Festival to the Pinakothek ... the charm of the marvellous Wittelsbach Capital, which has attracted probably everybody who is blessed with a feeling for beauty...' The pre-social security wandering, and judgments on usually impoverished fellow-men, is not unlike Joseph Conrad, Jack London, and the 'poet-tramp' William Davies, and Orwell and Jack Kerouac much later. Hitler for some years kept an eye on the German Sozialdemokrats and it's instructive to compare his remarks with Bertrand Russell's series of lectures on that subject at the LSE, delivered before 1900, which are painfully naive. Both Bertrand Russell and John Maynard Keynes were naive men, most unfortunately.
V: THE WORLD WAR and VI: WAR PROPAGANDA Because of the importance of these issues, I've written a detailed examination below, click here including what I take to be Hitler's analysis and his omissions.
VII: THE [JEWISH] REVOLUTION Hitler states: the old state had three pillars ... the revolution of 1918 abolished the monarchy, dissolved the army, and abandoned civil service to corruption of party politics. In 1919 Germany had a 'Soviet Revolution' for a time under under the Jew Kurt Eisner, and 'Soldier's Councils'. This event, like Bela Kun's 'Revolution' in Hungary, is almost totally censored, certainly from popular TV and other Jewish sources. However, it gave Hitler and Germans first-hand experience of Jewish activities in practice. Hitler as a result was not naive about 'Red' Russia and the Jewish dictators there, not about the source of their money. Near the end of Volume I he wrote: 'Russia furnishes the most terrible example of such a slavery. [i.e. 'endeavouring to exterminate all those who represent the national intelligence']. In that country the Jew starved or killed thirty millions of the people, in a bout of savage fanaticism and partly by the employment of inhuman torture. He did this so that a gang of Jewish literati and financial bandits should dominate over a great people.' Annoyingly this reference to Lenin and Trotsky as early as 1924 does not give sources for the figures.
Hitler doesn't mention the German peace offer when trench warfare was stalemated. And he doesn't mention Balfour's Declaration on Britain guaranteeing Israel. However, there was a munitions strike in Germany which helped end the war. I'd guess this would have been Jewish-provoked and must have been related to whatever Jews were planning, including the fall of the Hohenzollens. I haven't checked how this dovetails in with Germany and Russia and Brest-Litovsk. But common sense suggests some linkage.
Hitler says that 'in Münich 'almost every clerk was a Jew' and amplifies this in Vol II Chapter IX on storm troops: ' ... for each hero there was a shirker... the carefully preserved scum then made the Revolution..' (i.e. they remained alive through cunning). There was a 'difference from Russia with analphabetic peasants ...' The Social Democrats - extracted active elements - the Independent Socialist Party and Spartacist League ... bourgeois Germans through fear associated with the accursed Marxist leaders ... [with their] outward appearance of moderation. ... The Jew succeeded brilliantly in spreading .. the idea the defence organisations were 'non political'... State officials, chiefs of police, and even cabinet ministers ... shamelessly acted as the henchmen of the Marxists..'
VIII: THE BEGINNING OF MY POLITICAL ACTIVITIES/ IX: THE GERMAN LABOUR PARTY/ X: WHY THE SECOND REICH COLLAPSED/ XI: RACE AND PEOPLE/ XII: THE FIRST STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN NATIONAL SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY
• Feder wrote and spoke on interest on money. On this subject, click here for comments on interest and usury collected below. (Note that D C Watt's introductory comments of 1969, interesting only as evasions of the truth on most details of Hitler, describes Feder as a 'currency crank'. For H G Wells on the phrase 'currency crank', which was used to howl down any serious discussion of money, click here).
At a non-economic level, Hitler says this: '.. we have to fight for ... the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator.' (Possibly this is the source of slogans such as David Lane's '14 words'—'We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.')
• In 1918-1919 many new parties and groups were formed. Hitler's 'small group' started with the name 'Social-Revolutionary Party'. He also joined the tiny German Labour Party. Julius Streicher founded the German Socialist Party. By 1920 the NSDAP, translated here as 'National Socialist Labour Party', was dominant, according to Hitler. Note that 'Labour' politicians in Britain started the fashion of describing the NSDAP as "right wing"; this was intended as an insult to the British Conservative Party, and to deflect British labour from NSDAP-style policies. It was something of an irrelevance, as Britain had a 'national government' since 1931 and in effect was a one-party state. However, this was the start of "Nartzi" chants and anti-Hitler propaganda, and the phrase "extreme right", which has ruled in Jewish media propaganda ever since.
At the end of volume I, Hitler summarises: '... the Jew subdivides the organised Marxist power into two parts which correspond to the ultimate objectives ... carried out under the direction of the Jew. To outward appearance, these seem to be two independent movements but in reality they constitute an indivisible unity. The two divisions are: The political movement and the trades union movement.'
Top of page
Volume II: title translated as 'THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT' (published very late in 1926 in German). Fifteen chapters:
I WELTANSCHAUUNG AND PARTY/ II: THE STATE/ III: CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS OF THE STATE/ IV: PERSONALITY AND THE IDEAL OF THE PEOPLE'S STATE These chapters consider such issues as 'what is a 'state'? (And some of this is no doubt dependent on the puns between Staat and Stadt, or town - 'city-states' have played a big part in political theory). And the world-view of people, and how important this is. Most people, no doubt, think about themselves foremost, and, comparing people with the rest of the animal kingdom, this seems normal - not many creatures consider other animals in other parts of the world, or in the remote past. Hitler's comments on egotism aren't very satisfactory, but then, neither are anyone else's.
Hitler on worldviews (Weltanschauung = Welt an Schauung = world + to + idea, notion, intuition) stresses three things:
(1) Marxism, meaning something very close to the perpetual 'criticism' of the Frankfurt School: at the time, the Frankfurt School didn't exist, or at least didn't have headquarters in a Frankfurt building, and by 'criticisms' Hitler means the whole collection of anti-German comments, serious, unimportant, trivial, incorrect, made by Jews and attributed to Marx. (Vol II Chap 6: '... What gave Marxism its amazing influence over the broad masses was not that formal printed work which sets forth the Jewish system of ideas but the tremendous oral propaganda carried out for years among the masses. Out of one hundred thousand German workers scarcely one hundred know of Marx's book. i..'
(2) The Volk and völkisch ('folkish') ideas. He states that (like 'religious') 'völkisch' is a vague word, and the National Socialist Labour Party accordingly drew up 25 points to focus or sharpen the idea of a 'folk community' - Volksgemeinschaft. 'On Feb 24th 1920 the first great [NSDAP] mass-meeting ... took place. In the Banquet Hall of the Hoffbräuhaus in Münich the twenty-five theses .. were expounded... and each thesis was enthusiastically received.' Unfortunately, the 25 points are not listed or described in this book, though one could guess that they were well-known to Germans, and that a few are of great significance, but many concerned with smaller marginal detail. I'd guess that Hitler was struck my the intense clannishness, exclusivity, and amorality of Jews, and that 'folkish' meant in effect a greater degree of adhesiveness among Aryans, though I don't think he ever says that.
(3) Entirely new Weltanschauung in place of a 'miserable jumble of opinions'. Hitler in Nietzschean style often comments acidly on the boundless ignorance of the masses. These chapters are worth pondering to examine how Hitler looked at the problem of a mass change of opinion as embodied in a party. Some material is limited in interest to the administrative side and is of course pre-word processing and pre-Internet.
V: WELTANSCHAUUNG AND ORGANIZATION/ VI: THE FIRST PERIOD OF OUR STRUGGLE/ VII: THE CONFLICT WITH THE RED FORCES/ VIII: THE STRONG IS STRONGEST WHEN ALONE/ IX: FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS REGARDING THE NATURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STORM TROOPS/ X: THE MASK OF FEDERALISM/ XI: PROPAGANDA AND ORGANIZATION/ XII: THE PROBLEM OF THE TRADE UNIONS These chapters deal with the formation of political parties; I'd guess they were the least read of this pair of volumes. Two very serious issues are:
(1) Violence. Jews paid and encouraged their puppets ('.. a mob of loafers, deserters, political place-hunters, and Jewish dilettanti..') to undertake violence. Hitler's view was to respond unambiguously, though not with deadly weaponry. The result may have been to minimise the total of violence; or it may not. (Hitler doesn't I think make this claim explicitly).
(2) Unions. The organisation of industries with large numbers of 'workers'. The whole policy of the Sozialdemokraten was to make irresponsible demands, since they had no intention of ever meeting them.
An omission in my view is quantification of Hitler's overview. This is important to counter such comments as "Hitler blamed Jews for everything!" To illustrate, suppose that Jewish control of money gives them 20% of the GNP... Under Hitler's worldview, they use this 'money' in destructive ways - to fund violence, fund propaganda, fund blackmail, fund such things as disease and drug addiction, buy out valuable assets, cause depression by withdrawing moneys, pay puppet employees expected to follow the policy they lay down. ('... followers obey their Jewish masters as blindly as they obeyed their German officers.') Hitler does not provide any such figures, or guesses - but, again, such things as national income accounts were in the future. Nobody, as far as I know, got anywhere near a consideration of these things. (I may be wrong here, since after 1945 there was destruction of books on a huge scale by the anti-German allies). Hitler's policy would have been to use such funds, if a similar money policy was followed, to the benefit of Germans.
XIII: THE GERMAN POST-WAR POLICY OF ALLIANCES/ XIV: GERMANY'S POLICY IN EASTERN EUROPE/ XV: THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE
EPILOGUE There are several further omissions; some were developed later, but in ways biased by Jews as they constructed the 'Cold War', UN, 'world bank' etc.
International law Something of this sort was rigged up later. Hitler, since he was trying to remould an entire nation, couldn't perhaps be expected to predict or emphasise this. But, on second thoughts, after a World War and the ramshackle silliness of the Versailles Treaty, he might have commented on future possibilities. Note that, on the subject of law, Hitler doesn't comment on barratry and generally on lawyers rigging up cases to make money for lawyers, something which depends on state finance and has become a serious menace at the present day. It is possible that Hitler was funded by Jews—though perhaps not to a great extent—because they sensed omissions of aspects of Jews from his worldview.
Compensations, Reparations Hitler might have commented on assessments of damages and frauds. For example, it seems obvious that retributions should be at least as great as the original fraud, plus compensation for lost opportunities? But, unless I've missed it, such issues are omitted by Hitler.
Hyperinflation and paper money Hitler has nothing much on this, oddly, since inflation became serious after reparations, which needed more gold than existed in the entire world, were missed, and, apparently, replaced by paper money, and which was printed in such huge denominations that the reparations were nominally paid off in full. The 1921 'Paris Agreement' and the 'London Ultimatum' (Vol II Chap VII) were clearly a major part of German resentments. (This is a brief account; details may be wrong). In view of the lessons contained here, it seems surprising Hitler added little about this practical lesson in money.
Top of page
Rae West's CHECKLIST OF ITEMS to test for self-censorship, lack of knowledge, or decision to omit, on the part of Hitler:-
Jews in history
• The Khazar conversion theory. There is no sign of this in Mein Kampf; Jews in Poland were assumed to have arrived after a Semitic 'diaspora'.
• Jews in Poland as the largest concentration in Europe, potentially (and actually, as it turned out) a danger. I don't think Hitler predicted this risk.
• Russia: The 'Pale', Tsarist laws, assassinations of prominent Russians, fake pogroms were typical issues. See Frank Britton in about 1952 on this. All of these were somewhat familiar to Hitler.
• Jewish emigration to white countries ('planned like a military operation' wrote Hilaire Belloc). Hitler was aware of this but doesn't identify faked 'pogrom' stories as a useful ruse. (But he does comment on the USA's immigration policy, in the 1920s).
• The huge disproportion of e.g. Roth Schild as opposed to common 'StinkJuden' (German expression is something like this) doesn't seem part of Hitler's awareness: he simply saw a huge mass of propagandist clerical types.
• The 'Russian Revolution' in fact a Jewish Coup was known to Hitler. Possibly it's worth pointing out a remark to the effect that 'Communism' gave men self-confidence; Bertrand Russell said the Communist ideology led to self-confidence 'as great as a public school education' did. A J P Taylor agreed with this assessment. However, the truth is probably that the Jewish money backing them was what gave the appearance of confidence, rather than the bogus ideology. Without it they were less than nothing, and of course they were aware of this.
• Talmudic Ideas and Commands such as killing the best whites, divide-and-rule, controlling money, using Goy women as whores, telling 'constructive' lies are not very clearly expressed in Mein Kampf. Hitler doesn't for example state that, because fighting for one's country is life-or-death, war profits should not be allowed. Nor does he state that war profiteering may be a motive for starting wars, for example by potentially rich war profiteers, with 'Daddy Warbucks' types, money from death, and so on. Nor does he explore the idea that Jewish ethics insist that killing whites is religiously justified. He doesn't seem to have the concept anywhere, familiar at least since the Maine explosion, of false flags or other faked events to justify wars. Nor is the secret provocation of war discussed: I don't think the sinking of the Lusitania is mentioned. Both these types of events were used against Hitler later. So by today's standards of genuine sceptical enquiry Hitler seems rather naive. The only 'conspiracy theory' I could find was the supposed shooting attempt on Erhard Auer for which no evidence ever came to light, which Hitler evidently regarded as just another set of Jewish lies. (Vol II Chap VII, 'Conflict with the Red Forces')
• Hitler was aware that Judaism is not a religion in any ordinary sense. 'One of the most ingenious tricks ever devised has been that of sailing the Jewish ship-of-state under the flag of Religion and thus securing that tolerance which Aryans are always ready to grant ... But the Mosaic Law is really nothing else than the doctrine of the preservation of the Jewish race.' I'm not sure to what extent he noticed internal contradictions in Judaism. For example, if they were 'chosen' by God, they need have no special treatment whatever, a comment that also applies to Muslims who claim that 'Allah will provide'. (Click here for detailed comparisons between the two cults of Judaism and Islam). And if, in fact, they are exceptionally talented, they don't need special concessions as regards supplying money and trade. And secrecy would not be needed. But I couldn't find any criticisms like these in Mein Kampf.
Jew Süss, the novel, was published in 1925. The story on which it was based was probably familiar to Hitler. The suggestion that Jews introduced the concept that ancestral lands can be bought and sold; that women can be bought and sold; that soldiers can be bought and sold; was no doubt familiar to Hitler, along with the Jewish 'chosen' idea that non-Jews are excrement, and entirely unimportant.
Top of page
Hitler nowhere refers to or quotes from Talmudic writings; very possibly they simply had been kept secret. He uses 'Marxism' more or less as a synonym with 'Jewish activities' as inferred from their behaviour. He was perfectly aware that Marx had few readers; the propaganda had been in newspapers and leaflets, but, in Hitler's view, oral propaganda was by far the most influential mode of spreading Jewish attitudes. I think he was wrong, since newspapers have a prolonged effect over time, at least on reading classes, and can wait for the critical moment to arrive: Vol II, Chap XIII, German Alliances discusses the South Tyrol region, and mentions the Jewish press concentrating hate against England.
Marxism in a technical sense includes these ideas: Primitive Communism existed in the remote past; All history is war between classes; Revolutions are all-important, a view based on the French Revolution and 1848; the Millennium; Capitalism and Capital with laws relating to them, for example concentration of Capital into fewer and fewer hands; 'labour' as something exploited, and paid below its 'value' with the 'Labour theory of value' supposedly explaining prices. Much of the material is obviously wrong; it's unsurprising that oratory and short leaflets and slogans would dominate it. At any rate, Hitler makes no attempt to decode or criticise Marxism, or to draw attention to omissions, notably on money, on technology and skill, and on raw materials and geography. 'Marxism' continued to accumulate accretions; for example, the 'Great Depression' may well have been caused by Jews withdrawing credit to gain control of American assets, but, obviously, this view would not be promoted by 'Marxists'.
The Economic Conception of History and such issues as unequal distribution of resources isn't examined by Hitler, possibly taking his cue from Marxists. (Jews tend to be interested in money and finance, and in race hostility). England had coal and iron ore and steam power and railways; Germany had the Ruhr iron ores and coal and chemical industries; the USA had oil and electricity; and so on. Further back in time, the discovery of the Americas shifted the geography of trade to western Europe: shipping in Holland, Spain, Portugal, and, later, Britain, became more important. The slave trade (to the Americas) is now known to have been Jewish. Cromwell's admission of Jews and the resulting 'Bank of England' were highly significant to the world. Napoleon's sundry thefts were of huge importance. The discovery of many British men during the First World War of a 'secret they had never suspected' - control, in the legal sense, of raw materials by Jews - appears in Mein Kampf, but only feebly.
Top of page
First World War
• Hitler spent most of the war in trenches, presumably being shelled and shelling, or patrolling and sniping. (Note that the German trenches were far better than the British; British soldiers who found their way to them were amazed and annoyed to find elaborate rooms and proper drainage). It's unsurprising Hitler felt he had a personal interest; he's emphatic for example that deserters have to be shot, to discourage the others. However as far as I can see he arrived at no comprehensive overview of what happened in the First World War. This is not surprising: even now (the centenary of the start of the war is next year, at the time of writing) full details of the financing and the deals about materials are deliberately wrapped in obscurity.
• Hitler's first mention of the war is that it was 'disastrous'. He also thought that Austria-Hungary was mixed, not very German, vulnerable, and represented a valuable prize, so that a number of powers would have fought for it: 'sacrifice was inevitable'. Austria was decrepit and many looked forward to its collapse; the German alliance was a mistake, as Germany could have had better allies, including, he wrote often, England. He was aghast that diplomats in Münich did not understand the situation in Austria; if they had, the 'Triple Alliance' with Italy could never have been taken seriously, in view of the history of crimes by the Habsburgs against Italy. He regarded the Habsburgs as feeble and unreliable allies; and perhaps oddly, wrote it was 'lucky for Germany that the war of 1914 broke out with Austria as its direct cause ... the Habsburgs were compelled to participate. ... otherwise, Germany would have been left to her own resources.'
• I've been unable to find why Hitler considered the war worth fighting at all, on the basis of one murder; very possibly after years of propaganda he could see no option, as he regarded the war as being started by England. though he did not give detailed evidence. Or perhaps it was the feeling that the troops would be back by Christmas - at the start of the war the very same phrase was popularised in England. (Pp 122-154; Chapters IV and V). Or maybe he shared the view that Germany had been fair to England, and there was a good chance they wouldn't fight back. Or something else: Germans were 'often capable of fighting for phantoms to the point of complete exhaustion..' Possibly Hitler couldn't bring himself to state he didn't know.
• Here's Benjamin Freedman (1961) on the first years of 'the First World War': ' ... Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supplyand after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering thatseriously. ...'
Freedman in his speech went on to say Jews wanted Germany to win; or at least were indifferent. He marks the next phase of the War as caused by the Balfour Declaration. The promise of Israel, in Palestine, to Jews caused Jewish propaganda in the USA to change like a traffic light from US neutrality to war against Germany. Incidentally the propaganda success influenced the whole of the century in the USA, and beyond: Americans were inhumanly vicious and fanatical in turn against Germans, Japanese, Commies, Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis...
I can't find any evidence that Hitler was aware of Balfour's 'Declaration' in 1917, or that he was aware of the establishment of the 'Fed', Federal Reserve, in 1913, which underpinned Jewish paper money supremacy in the USA.
The Balfour hypothesis has achieved cult status among revisionists. However Hitler noticed, and noted, that Jews had no intention of living in Israel, which in any case was far too small: it would be a bolt-hole for crooks, a shrewd enough forecast, considering such a foundation was thirty years in the future. My own best guess is that there was money in war: Jews could make profits out of arms, and a few years' war meant a few years' windfall profits, especially if, as it turned out, the Jew Baruch was made something like financial dictator of the USA. In addition, with luck a few million goyim would die; also there would be inflation and impoverishment, and poor countries would remain poor, all these results being in full accordance with Jewish ethics. Moreover, they hated the Russians and the Tsar, and had done at least since 1814. With luck Jewish money could fund a coup in Russia, which could be looted and plundered. All this happened. So I'd suggest Balfour was a cover story, to pretend there was a genuinely moral reason for prolonging the war.
As supporting evidence, there are many stories of wasted ammunition, wasted food, wasted ships and equipment: puzzled diarists note without understanding the bread thrown away, water boiled by machine gun bullets, bombs being dropped at random, airplanes being used to deliver letters to other aerodromes.
• There may have been a secret agreement to support Jews in ruining Russia. Certainly there was abundant support for the 'USSR' once it had been formed.
• The effects of the First World War included famine and deaths, the great influenza epidemic, destruction of many villages and towns, often described in France, but obviously also in large stretches of eastern Europe. And yet Hitler says almost nothing of this. His accounts of his work after WW1 sound similar to his pre-war life. The really huge destruction of life and property probably happened further east. For example, the shipping blockades are difficult to assess: could their importance have been exaggerated, in view of the fact that there were vast land areas accessible to Germany? The flu epidemic is easier to assess: most deaths were counted as caused by flu, whereas obviously most must have been caused by wartime deprivations; fake and misleading death certificates are common enough even in peaceful times.
Top of page
The Big Lie
• The following is the only passage on 'the big lie' in Mein Kampf; Hitler's only example is false attribution of the loss of the war on Ludendorff: '... By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.
All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...'
Hitler doesn't mention the Bryce Report, an account of atrocities such as the bayonetted babies in Belgium, obviously intended to keep war going on. I suspect English-language publications weren't widely circulated in Germany during the war; and/or Hitler and his circle didn't read English. Most of Hitler's propaganda examples seem to be by Jews and their puppets, writing in German. Incidentally the Bryce Report had considerable longevity: it is quoted in the Jew Susan Brownmiller's junk book Against Our Will on rape, as though UK/US propaganda is reliable.
The only other similar phrase I could find is translated as 'great lie': in Vol II Chapter VI 'The First Period of our Struggle' '... millions of Germans saw in the Treaty of Versailles a just castigation for the crime we had committed at Brest-Litovsk. ... the monstrous word 'Reparations' came into common use in Germany. ... The best proof of this [i.e. deceived Germans] was the propaganda which I initiated against Versailles by explaining the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. I compared the two treaties ... point by point, and showed how ... one treaty was immensely humane, in contradistinction to the inhuman barbarity of the other. ...' However, Hitler gives no detailed information on these treaties.
In both examples Hitler in my view omits something of critical importance, namely the commanding position an organisation has to be in, to promote a big lie. Not all organisations are able to repeat the same big lie repeatedly, year in and year out, over and over. To do this needs power, typically monetary or military. Coca Cola spends a lot on advertising; so do Jupiler and ELF in France (beer and fuel); so do Honda and Toyota (cars). To most people these things seem like background detail; it's not irrational for them to approve the products, since clearly they are backed by a lot of power. But these examples are peanuts in comparison e.g. with the US Army. Hitler doesn't mention, or doesn't think to mention, that Jewish propaganda was backed by huge resources and continual reinforcing repetition.
German propaganda overseas was, or seems to have been, neglected by Hitler. Considering the depth and extent of Jewish propaganda in the USA in the 1930s (New York Times and the press generally, Hollywood films, radio, etc), and in Britain (e.g. the Jewish Left Book Club and publishers Lawrence & Wishart; here's my overview of Jewish book propaganda in Britain at the time), and in the academic world, Hitler seems to have been positively negligent. Of course it's certain Jews would have physically attacked such people and organisations.
Top of page
Race, biology, Darwinian material, eugenics, human groups
• Hitler is often deliberately deployed as an example of someone with horrible inhuman ideas; I've tried to collect together his views here. His views are not very coherent; but, since no biologists have yet worked out a synthesis of evolution and the problems of human groups, this is not surprising. The opinions in Mein Kampf are not in any way exceptional or unusual and in many ways very moderate; for example, unlike modern Americans, he doesn't favour mass killings by bombing; and unlike modern Jews, he doesn't favour racial genocide.
General ideas about populations and evolution date from Darwin, or more accurately Wallace, though of course there's nothing new about the components: some ancient Greeks exposed babies, farmers have bred animals and crops, many 'baby farmed' infants died, wars targeted rivals as well as inferior/ weaker groups, etc.; to this day women regarded as undesirable, in institutions, are fed (I'm told) contraceptive pills. Black women in Israel are injected to make them sterile when they aren't thrown out. And so on. (Here's a piece on eugenics countering the usual knee-jerk alarmism). Some views on 'Darwin' are painfully silly: recently I heard someone claim that radiation would cause survivors of it to be improved, but if such a policy were taken seriously, universal irradiation might ruin the entire human species. As any statistician knows, comparisons should be made between equivalent groups: Hitler's race views aren't in any way 'extreme'. But in his discussions on the allied shipping blockade and starvation, he says the fight for means of existence 'hardens and renders fit', coming near to saying he approved it.
Hitler did not believe Germans were a single pure race, but 'out of this melting-pot no new race arose.' (Vol II, Chap II 'The State'). The Thirty Years' War in particular, between Protestant Lutherans in the north and Catholics in the south, during the Reformation, 'destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul.' Hitler also blamed the open frontiers of 'our native country', non-German foreign elements, and various elements in single districts: 'Beside the Nordic type we find the East-European type ... the Dinaric intermingling with both... and hybrids'.
Hitler got into muddles over the idea of 'struggle', perhaps through failure to clarify detail: in practice, patience, entrenchment, preparation, planning and thought are just as much part of 'struggle' as the more obvious combat. Hitler was enraged that survivors may well be sneaks, cowards, and poor quality; and brave men may get themselves killed. His chapter on storm troops divides people into the best, then the masses in the broad middle masses, then the worst. He regarded blacks as the worst race, based on empirical evidence, viz that they had achieved almost nothing. He praised Aryans, a commonly-used word at the time, and believed in 'blood', but I couldn't find any systematic definition of these terms; very likely they were just expressions of praise. It's hard to believe he regarded a circulating fluid which carries oxygen (and other things) as more important that musculature or brains. Most likely it was a simple monosyllable intended to convey the idea of a race.
&nsbp; ('Aryan': This word was likely to have meant a group of languages in the 19th century. Later, it was extended to race or races. This interpretation, despite its plausibility—people who speak the same language presumably are more likely to intermarry—was frantically opposed. My guess is that Jews were anxious that Hebrew and/or Jüdische/Yiddish pidgin-language group would not draw attention to their race claims).
Hitler's division into best/ masses/ worst is the closest thing I could find to the idea of a 'gene pool', i.e. a distribution of qualities that remains similar over many generations. Hitler wrote before DNA, but nevertheless biologists had accumulated a lot of knowledge about inheritance, and related topics, such as mimicry and parasitism, which Hitler drew on in an erratic way. He seems to confuse 'races', which exist in almost all species, with species; for example saying that nature is 'anti-mongrel', a dubious statement since the sudden increase in ease of travel needed for mongrelisation is rare in nature. Since patience, toleration of boredom etc are in some sense part of a balanced gene pool, Hitler might have been expected to factor this into his views of race. Similarly with localisation of influences on the mind (i.e. not to far off times and places) and memory. Given exasperation over the War his impatient attitude is understandable.
Hitler regarded blacks as the worst races, and also regarded France, which used black troops, as being a European country on its way to becoming African. Hitler noted the Jewish policy of trying to force miscegenation on white countries ('... Jews wanted Germany destroyed ... negroid blood on the Rhine...') and of course this has been Jewish policy for the entire 20th century and beyond. (Perhaps it's worth noting that Giles Milton's book White Gold on Thomas Pellew, one million white slaves, and the Muslim black multiple murdering ruler in north west Africa, Moulay Ismael, had the same policy of miscegenation, reminiscent of the 'Homo Sovieticus', Russia under the Jews, where entire populations were moved; this has been current policy for white countries since Jews emerged after 1945 with power over many countries).
Detailed examination of population genetics should include parasitism: population thefts and kidnappings: Some African tribes kidnapped young males, to save the expense and trouble of many years' upbringing. A historically significant example is the use by Turks of Janissaries, young ex-Christians turned over to them under threat and brought up to fight their ancestors' groups. They are reported to have become terrifyingly loyal to their Islamic handlers. Another example is slavery, notably of black Africans by Arabs: the males are reported to have been castrated. Black slaves in the transatlantic trade were (it's now understood, but was probably not in 1920s Germany) a Jewish business. Yet another form is supposed to be kidnap of children, perhaps to use for begging, by gipsies. Yet another is the thuggee cult in India: on long journeys, groups of thugs would join travellers, increasing their numbers, but with no sign they knew each other; on reaching an isolated oasis, the victims would be killed by ritual strangulation, robbed, disarticulated, and buried.
A related issue is sex, which of course is linked to reproduction. Russian and far eastern soldiers under Jewish control carried out mass rapes in eastern Europe in 1945; American troops in Vietnam under Jewish control carried out mass rapes. Legal abortions were unknown at Hitler's period, just as homosexuality was illegal. The post-1960s legalisation of abortions and the resulting industry appears to be Jewish, something Hitler could have predicted, but as far as I know didn't. Targetted contraception for whites is another race-based population issue. Another behavioural oddity is the fascination of Jews with child sex: the 'Jew' Harriet Harman in Britain was part of a group wanting to do away entirely with any age of consent. Homosexuality and pornography were and are also promoted by 'Jews'.
I don't know of any authenticated statements by Hitler even remotely approaching these levels of cynical and disgusting behaviour.
On emigration and colonisation Hitler wrote (in his chapter on his thoughts in Münich, just before the War) considering options for increasing populations, which read much the same as debates in England on colonies, increased trade, 'Internal Colonization', conquest, and so on. He seems to conclude that as, or if, populations everywhere continue to grow, Germans will need more land, presumably in the east, though there's not much in the way of quantification: Russia, Siberia, and so on being vast territories, with Poland, Ukrainia, and other territories in between. (On the subject of colonisation, Forum thread on USA, Revolution, Civil War looks at, among other things, colonisation and 'primary economic reality').
Top of page
• Most of what Hitler has to say about democracy is in the first chapter of volume II, along with discussions on nations and races, and the 'State' and WorldViews. He doesn't say a great deal about Monarchies, and Principalities, Dukedoms and the rest, despite their dominance in European history; probably they were sufficiently discredited by the recent First World War, when a whole clutch of Csars (etymology from 'Caesar') vanished. Hitler has a long account of Parliamentary politics and the effects of five-yearly elections on parties, who at quinquennial intervals are (he joked) 'seized by an irresistible desire to act' - by revising their programmes, changing their convictions, and promising everyone everything. Since Germany had been ruined, partly by their machinations, contempt is understandable. His account reads very like modern critics of what's called 'democracy'. As far as I could find, Hitler says nothing about proportional representation, which has some modifying effect, since with first-past-the-post in geographical constituencies there's a natural tendency for two parties to dominate. (One of the vast numbers of myths about Germany was that Proportional Representation helped the NSDAP: in fact, if Germany had had first-past-the-post, every single seat would have been NSDAP). Note also that 'democracy' was opposed by many conservatives in the west; the notion that, for example, England was enthusiastically pro-democracy is simply not true, for obvious enough reasons. Thus Bertrand Russell, writing about the First World War, wrote in effect that many British supporters of that War had to scramble about to find differences with Germany, and many of them said we are democratic, despite the fact they had opposed democracy as far as possible.
'.. it may be well to recall the fact that when critical occasions arose these same gentlemen ['certain groups of Marxists'] snapped their fingers at the principle of decision by majority vote ... and the Marxists did not hesitate to suddenly grasp political power into their own hands...' wrote Hitler, and of course this sort of thing applied throughout the 20th century and the 21st so far. These facts are not arguments against democracy, but against 'democracy'. Hitler was in effect saying as long as Jewish money and Jews and their puppets felt able to control what they called 'democracy', they would support 'democracy' - this is very noticeable at the present day, when fake schemes to promote 'democracy' in countries where it has no roots are popular with neo-con Jews. It was noticeable then with the bare-faced Jewish lie that the Jewish 'Bolshevist' party in Russia was a majority, which they deployed to get the peasants on their side—for a time.
Hitler believed, or hoped, that, bearing in mind 'the fact that ... the highest ideals are ... the outcome of some profound vital need' that a 'new and exalted political faith' would be instilled into the masses and lead to support for his movement, and indeed he was proved correct.
Hitler believed in 'really great popular leaders', but gives no actual examples; Chapter XI on 'Race and People' and Chapter XII talk of a 'great man in special circumstances' and 'a single protagonist'. Some of this may refer to more or less mythical heroes, such as Arminius against Rome.
The 'best constitution makes it natural for the best brains to reach dominant influence' (Vol II Chapter IV, 'Personality and the Idea of the People's State') is perhaps Hitler's conclusion.
Top of page
Notes on Countries
• Hitler was aware (Munich chapter) that Britain had fought many brutal wars for the empire, and that Germany had been far more pacifist. He states the Manchester School of Liberalism, i.e. free trade and free international markets, was a Jewish construction; but he does not mention for example the Opium Wars and other wars as having any Jewish connection. He has no theory about the British in India; was it profit-making? One-sided? Beneficial? And he doesn't seem to have even regarded the Boer War as Jew-related with diamond and gold interests. He was anti-Slav, whether through propaganda (all Jewish media propaganda was anti-Russian; British, American, German) or through some rather simple assumptions about obtainable land in Russia. He seems to have been pro-Japan in the (Jewish-funded) Japanese war against Russia just after 1900. He had no theory about the US Civil War and Jews and slavery. As regards Britain, he seems to have understated the extend of Jewish penetration into what had been the aristocracy: Senator Thorkelson in 1940 made a bit of difference here. France, as we've seen, Hitler regarded as on its way to being Africanised, partly because the French restricted births on inheritance grounds. It's worth pointing out that a rather faint movement existed for a Catholic Union, including France and Italy and east to Bavaria. In view of the Jewish destruction of Russian Orthodox personnel and seizure of their assets, this made a lot of sense, but Roman Catholic inability to take a principled stand—reminiscent of the supine nothingness of the Church of England—must have made his a non-starter. Hitler mentions Morocco and Moroccan troops. Hitler didn't regard the French Revolution as Jewish-promoted; Nesta Webster's English-language research writings were available, but not (I think) translated into German. I don't know how many German authors regarded the Napoleonic and subsequent eras as Jewish-run, but anyway it would appear Hitler had not investigated this possibility. Hitler doesn't mention the once-notorious 'Dreyfus Affair'. The genocide of Christians in Armenia by Turks doesn't seem to be mentioned. Hitler mentions Mussolini and Italy, and obviously approves of Mussolini, but with little detail. Crude oil sources in the Middle East, and the manipulations turning supposedly Arab leaders and tracts of land into accurately-defined countries, aren't detailed; possibly Hitler simply subsumed this sort of thing under the British Empire heading. He admired the British Empire, though Jewish media were very careful not to hint at any possibility of Anglo-German alliance, something for which European monarchies must have had some leaning.
Top of page
Interest and Usury and Money Organisation and Power
• Feder may have been a considerable influence on Hitler, but it's unclear from Hitler's book whether this was on a traditional Roman Catholic basis, or whether it was an objection to 'usury'.
('Usury' is an 'unproductive loan' according to Hilaire Belloc, who perhaps ought to have known. It strikes me that the 'Federal Reserve', established in 1913, is a perfect example: the only 'reserve' it has is paper money, intrinsically worthless; and it can print money ad lib with no audit. And it extorts interest payments from the U.S. government).
The issue may have been the irrelevant intrusion of money: Catholic tradition may have been to have work done annually for them, and a tithe (tenth) of agricultural output, with no money intervention, on an exchange basis. There are problems of definition here, which arguably are not important, the real issue being Jewish control of finance. Another interesting point is Hitler's claim that 'international stock exchange capital ... not only the chief instigating factor in bringing on the War but ... [turning] peace into a hell.' I couldn't find a detailed explanation of this point. I take it that Hitler meant there's something in the power structure of corporations which decouples their useful work from dividends. But, if so, there's no clear explanation. But, to be fair, nearly a century later, economists have got nowhere with the issue, and certainly the phrase 'currency crank' was deployed to deter people from investigating Jewish money power.
The only researcher known to me working on interest and usury from the Roman Catholic viewpoint is Michael A Hoffman II in the USA. On money power and plutocracy, I feel there must be latent ideas waiting to emerge: could there be a 'coefficient of independence from money' as a possible explanatory variable? Could there be a 'coefficient of remote legal ownership', as opposed to ownership of more local and immediate things and assets? Could money have been deliberately used as a weapon in e.g. the Belgian Congo, to force the natives to work?
Hoffman is very emphatic on the traditional Roman Catholic objection to usury, which is widely-known. BUT on considering the question of the origins of Christianity, very likely through insistent Jewish repetition and the use of faked scripture, the issue may not be so simple. I'd like to suggest the thundering rejection of usury was aimed at the faithful, the naive goyim. Economic power being divided between the Church, who in effect used their religious authority to allow Jews to practise usury with no competition. Jews would of course ignore Papal bulls, while enjoying something of a money monopoly. I suspect this explains the close conjunction between Church and Jews: consider for example Lincoln Cathedral, almost next door to Aaron the Jew's house. The Greek, eastern Orthodox Church, presuambly was different, and in fact the differences may help prove this point.
Top of page
Jewish Manipulative Tricks as Identified by Hitler in Mein Kampf
• Lies tailored to Jewish aims
• Forcing of racial immigration onto Aryan populations
• Joint stock companies and other financial devices relying on control of finance
• Irresponsible promises as they have no intention of carrying the promises through
• Distractions and quarrels through Jewish-controlled media, to hide and redirect attention away from important issues. For example (Vol II, Chap X, Mask of Federalism) War Companies and Jewish profits disguised by quarrels between Bavaria and Prussia, with violent struggles over this issue.
• Example - which may remind you of modern-day equivalents (From Vol II Chap VII 'Red Forces'; this is a long passage, but edited, which may give the flavour of Hitler's writing-)
In 1919-20 and also in 1921 ... We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings - if only in order to break them up ...
... it was indeed a delightful experience to follow the constantly changing tactics of our perplexed and helpless adversaries. First of all they appealed to their followers to ignore us and keep away from our meetings. ... But, as time went on, more and more of their followers gradually found their way to us and accepted our teaching. Then the leaders became nervous and uneasy. They clung to their belief that such a development should not be ignored for ever, and that terror must be applied in order to put an end to it.
Appeals were then made to the 'class-conscious proletariat' to attend our meetings in masses and strike with the clenched hand of the proletarian at the representatives of a 'monarchist and reactionary agitation'.
Our meetings suddenly became packed with work-people fully three-quarters of an hour before the proceedings were scheduled to begin. These gatherings resembled a powder cask ready to explode at any moment; and the fuse was conveniently at hand. But matters always turned out differently. People came as enemies and left, not perhaps prepared to join us, yet in a reflective mood and disposed critically to examine the correctness of their own doctrine. ... Every signal for the breaking-up of the meeting failed. The result was that the opposition leaders became frightened ... and, with some show of right, had been of the opinion that on principle the workers should be for bidden to attend our meetings.
Then they did not come any more, or only in small numbers. But after a short time the whole game started all over again. The instructions to keep away from us were ignored; the comrades came in steadily increasing numbers, until finally the advocates of the radical tactics won the day. We were to be broken up.
Yet when, after two, three and even eight meetings, it was realized that to break up these gatherings was easier said than done and that every meeting resulted in a decisive weakening of the red fighting forces, then suddenly the other password was introduced: 'Proletarians, comrades and comradesses, avoid meetings of the National Socialist agitators'.
The same eternally alternating tactics were also to be observed in the Red Press. Soon they tried to silence us but discovered the uselessness of such an attempt. After that they swung round to the opposite tactics. Daily 'reference' was made to us solely for the purpose of absolutely ridiculing us in the eyes of the working-classes. After a time these gentlemen must have felt that no harm was being done to us, but that, on the contrary, we were reaping an advantage in that people were asking themselves why so much space was being devoted to a subject which was supposed to be so ludicrous. People became curious. Suddenly there was a change of tactics and for a time we were treated as veritable criminals against mankind. One article followed the other, in which our criminal intentions were explained and new proofs brought forward to support what was said. Scandalous tales, all of them fabricated from start to finish, were published in order to help to poison the public mind. But in a short time even these attacks also proved futile; and in fact they assisted materially because they attracted public attention to us.
In those days I took up the standpoint that it was immaterial whether they laughed at us or reviled us, whether they depicted us as fools or criminals; the important point was that they took notice of us and that in the eyes of the working-classes we came to be regarded as the only force capable of putting up a fight. I said to myself that the followers of the Jewish Press would come to know all about us and our real aims.
One reason why they never got so far as breaking up our meetings was undoubtedly the incredible cowardice displayed by the leaders of the opposition. On every critical occasion they left the dirty work to the smaller fry whilst they waited outside the halls for the results of the break up.
We were exceptionally well informed in regard to our opponents’ intentions, not only because we allowed several of our party colleagues to remain members of the Red organizations for reasons of expediency, but also because the Red wire-pullers, fortunately for us, were afflicted with a degree of talkativeness that is still unfortunately very prevalent among Germans. They could not keep their own counsel, and more often than not they started cackling before the proverbial egg was laid. Hence, time and again our precautions were such that Red agitators had no inkling of how near they were to being thrown out of the meetings.
This state of affairs compelled us to take the work of safeguarding our meetings into our own hands. No reliance could be placed on official protection. On the contrary; experience showed that such protection always favoured only the disturbers. The only real outcome of police intervention would be that the meeting would be dissolved, that is to say, closed. And that is precisely what our opponents granted.
Generally speaking, this led the police to adopt a procedure which ... was a most infamous sample of official malpractice. The moment they received information of a threat that the one or other meeting was to be broken up, in stead of arresting the would-be disturbers, they promptly advised the innocent parties that the meeting was forbidden. This step the police proclaimed as a 'precautionary measure in the interests of law and order'.
The political work and activities of decent people could therefore always be hindered by desperate ruffians who had the means at their disposal. In the name of peace and order State authority bowed down to these ruffians and demanded that others should not provoke them. When National Socialism desired to hold meetings in certain parts and the labour unions [i.e. presumably Jewish controllers] declared that their members would resist, then it was not these blackmailers that were arrested and gaoled. No. Our meetings were forbidden by the police. Yes, this organ of the law had the unspeakable impudence to advise us in writing to this effect in innumerable instances. To avoid such eventualities, it was necessary to see to it that every attempt to disturb a meeting was nipped in the bud. Another feature to be taken in to account in this respect is that all meetings which rely on police protection must necessarily bring discredit to their promoters in the eyes of the general public. ...
It is for this latter reason in particular that our young movement was to be charged with the responsibility of assuring its own existence, defending itself; and conducting its own work of smashing the Red opposition.
The work of organizing the protective measures for our meetings was based on the following:
(1) An energetic and psychologically judicious way of conducting the meeting.
(2) An organized squad of troops to maintain order.
In those days we and no one else were masters of the situation at our meetings and on no occasion did we fail to emphasize this. Our opponents fully realized that any provocation would be the occasion of throwing them out of the hall at once, whatever the odds against us. At meetings, particularly outside Münich, we had in those days from five to eight hundred opponents against fifteen to sixteen National Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be killed rather than capitulate. More than once a handful of party colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three or four times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. ...
The Marxists had always exercised a most rigid discipline so that the question of breaking up their meetings could never have originated in bourgeois quarters. This gave the Reds all the more reason for acting on this plan. In time they not only became past-masters in this art but in certain large districts of the Reich they went so far as to declare that non-Marxist meetings were nothing less than a cause of 'provocation against the proletariate'. This was particularly the case when the wire-pullers suspected that a meeting might call attention to their own transgressions and thus expose their own treachery and chicanery. Therefore the moment such a meeting was announced to be held a howl of rage went up from the Red Press. These detractors of the law nearly always turned first to the authorities and requested in imperative and threatening language that this 'provocation of the proletariat' be stopped forthwith in the 'interests of law and order'. Their language was chosen according to the importance of the official blockhead they were dealing with and thus success was assured. If by chance the official happened to be a true German - and not a mere figurehead - and he declined the impudent request, then the time-honoured appeal to stop 'provocation of the proletariat' was issued together with instructions to attend such and such a meeting on a certain date in full strength for the purpose of 'putting a stop to the disgraceful machinations of the bourgeoisie by means of the proletarian fist'.
The pitiful and frightened manner in which these bourgeois meetings are conducted must be seen in order to be believed. Very frequently these threats were sufficient to call off such a meeting at once. ... The Chairman thereupon did his best, by showering compliments on the 'gentleman of the opposition' to prove how he and all others present were pleased (a palpable lie) to welcome a visit from men who as yet were not in sympathy with them for the reason that only by mutual discussion (immediately agreed to) could they be brought closer together in mutual understanding. ... Everyone had the right to form and hold his own political views, but others should be allowed to do likewise. He therefore requested that the speaker be allowed to deliver his speech without interruption - the speech in any case not being a long affair. People abroad, he continued, would thus not come to regard this meeting as another shameful example of the bitter fraternal strife that is raging in Germany. And so on and so forth.
The brothers of the Left had little if any appreciation for that sort of talk; the speaker had hardly commenced when he was shouted down. One gathered the impression at times that these speakers were grateful for being peremptorily cut short in their martyr-like discourse. These bourgeois toreadors left the arena in the midst of a vast uproar, that is to say, provided that they were not thrown down the stairs with cracked skulls, which was very often the case.
Therefore, our methods of organization at National Socialist meetings were something quite strange to the Marxists. They came to our meetings in the belief that the little game which they had so often played could as a matter of course be also repeated on us. "To-day we shall finish them off." How often did they bawl this out to each other on entering the meeting hall, only to be thrown out with lightning speed before they had time to repeat it.
In the first place our method of conducting a meeting was entirely different. We did not beg and pray to be allowed to speak, and we did not straightway give everybody the right to hold endless discussions. We curtly gave everyone to understand that we were masters of the meeting and that we would do as it pleased us and that everyone who dared to interrupt would be unceremoniously thrown out. We stated clearly our refusal to accept responsibility for anyone treated in this manner. If time permitted and if it suited us, a discussion would be allowed to take place. Our party colleague would now make his speech. . . . That kind of talk was sufficient in itself to astonish the Marxists.
Secondly, we had at our disposal a well-trained and organized body of men for maintaining order at our meetings. On the other hand the bourgeois parties protected their meetings with a body of men better classified as ushers who by virtue of their age thought they were entitled to-authority and respect. But as Marxism has little or no respect for these things, the question of suitable self-protection at these bourgeois meetings was, so to speak, in practice non-existent. ...
Top of page
A stylistic detail in Mein Kampf is the use of a colon, followed by fuller explanations, often for many pages. This was probably Hitler giving his views orally; the result is often not very clear, as might be expected. However, since these passages were reprinted for almost twenty years, they clearly count for a lot evidentially. They are too long for detailed exposition here, but here are examples, with notes (pagination from Jaico edition), and one example that I've outlined:-
(Chap III p121) Pan-Germanism & the pan-German party.
(Chap IV p129) Population growth and food policy: four options last 2 being commercial expansion, or eastern territory
(Chap IV p136ish) European states like pyramid on apex: why England only possible ally - confused passages; 17 England safeguard rear
(Chap IV p149) States; what are they? and 351 Theories of the State (3 opinions)
(Chap IV p135) Rural:Urban balance: Peasants and farmers, small & medium.
(Chap V p162) Force vs the power of ideas.
(Chap X p210) Collapse of the Second Reich (i.e. unification of Germany, up to the defeat of Kaiser Wilhelm II's Germany)
(Chap XI p279) (a)-(l) long passage on Jews interesting as it's something like Hitler's historical version of the 'Protocols of Zion', projected back into the German past. Summarising drastically (and some sections (a) through (l) are lengthy) we have, and what follows are largely my précis, trying to show how Hitler combined historical and economic and racial assertions. It's uncertain to me how much is true, how much Hitler believed to be true. Bear in mind that 'historians' have united in carefully avoiding these issues:–
The problem to be examined is Jews as a nation, and their passed-down teachings and mentality, 'uncanny to the Aryan mind.' Jews are the same at all epochs.
(a) As soon as German settlements were established, Jews appeared, as foreign merchants.
(b) As a middleman, Jews negotiated with ingenuous Aryans, notably lending at interest.
(c) Jews lived in their own sections of towns and gradually formed a State within a State.
(d) Finance, trade, and treating land as a commodity, plus impudence and tyranny, caused public anger to grow. The masses took the law into their own hands.
(e) Then Jews switched to governments. And secured legal exploitation. Laws debarred Jews from buying land.
(f) Kings' and princes' power increased. But they generally needed money. Jews offered payment to them in exchange for privileges and charters. The German princes themselves were contemptible (and seem to have been innumerate). Hitler doesn't seem to explain the leverages applied to German princes.
(g) 'Court Jews' entangled and squeezed princes, working for their downfall. The princes squandered money on pleasure; the Jews were honoured; they entered the hereditary nobility; finally they were baptized as a business device. This is approximately the period of the novel and film of Württemberg Jew Süss, though the Oppenheimer of that book was executed.
(h) Now Jews took on languages and manners, but remained Jews; the power of princes crumbled; their financial power was so powerful the goal of world rule seemed possible. Hence the push to civil and political rights.
(i) Now there's a new bifurcation: Jews in ruling groups, but also pretending to work with the people despite their past record. And to want to help the people progress. While promoting stock dealings, but also undermining personal ownership, and with indirect tactics: trying to remove race barriers, pretending races don't exist, encouraging religious 'tolerance', 'masons', the press, the 'parliamentary system' with corruption, and so on. They remove the monarchy.
(j) Now we have disinherited overworked factory slaves, along with favoured bureaucrats, and changes in attitude so manual labour is regarded with contempt. The bourgeoisie paid little attention. Jews cunningly offered help to the oppressed workers, but in fact have no interest in a healthy bright population. So Jewish unions make absurd claims, damage the nation's economy, carry out violent acts. The press and political parties continue Jewish policies and oppose anyone upright and decent. Marxism becomes a weapon.
(k) Other developments include one group who openly claim to want a state, which in fact would be just a centre for crime. The other group remains disguised and cryptic, pretending to be British, French, Rumanian, etc. They aim to miscegenate whites and work for coloured immigration and seduction of white girls. (Here's a modern example of what Hitler may have been talking about. Not just white girls, of course). Jews destroy states by ringing them with enemies and forcing wars, by reviling their history, destroying beauty, mocking other religions.
(l) The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', in fact Jewish domination, murders the intelligentsia, as in Russia where thirty million were starved or killed. The racial problem of extermination is incomparably the most important issue at the present time.
(Chap XII p305) Nationalization of the masses (14 points)
(Vol II Chap IV p402) Cultural evolution of mankind. Inventions; then other living things.
(Vol II Chap IX p488) What's needed for storm detachments. Example of expedition to Coburg and clash with Marxist street bullies
(Vol II Chap XIV p572) Germany in eastern Europe
Top of page
Was Hitler 'an extremist'? Was Hitler 'extreme'?
• Jewish media before and after 1945 consistently presents Hitler as an 'extremist'. Revisionists and any serious person must wonder whether this is true. There are 'conspiracy theorists', however, who point out that Hitler was funded by Jews, though without much detail: I haven't seen convincing detail of large gifts to Hitler from Jews, and of course bank records are still secret. I'd like to suggest that Hitler was in fact not extreme, and, if funded, was funded precisely because he was not extreme. There is little information about Germans who became anti-Jewish after the First World War. However, some must certainly have blamed Jews for starting the war and/or contributing to Germany's defeat and starvation and humiliation. It struck me that Ernst Röhm's murder or killing, and the 'Night of the Long Knives', may have been aimed at removing other Germans who wanted condign punishment of Jews. And how could Kristallnacht have been organised without Jews? And it may be that Himmler and the eastern front and concealment from Hitler point the same lesson.
Top of page
Notes on the Future (in 1925)
• Air war was not yet very developed. Airplanes were almost ideal for war, as warmongers noted. During the First World War, the trenches were pounded by artillery ("thorough artillery preparation" was the English phrase) - but there was security back home, away from the fronts. By the time of the next war, Victory Through Air Power was an American film title, 'air support' became a cowardly euphemism, and much of Japan, Germany, and, later, Korea and Vietnam, were bombed, making the USAF the biggest killer of children of any organisation ever (Robert Faurisson's words). (France was also heavily bombed:- note added July 2015).
• Medical: antibiotics, notably penicillin, were in the future. This explains why Hitler was concerned about syphilis, a dangerous sexually transmitted disease for which there was no cure at the time. The Jewish media now pretend this was some obsessiveness on Hitler's part, not the serious concern which it was. Hitler mentions puerperal fever, previously a horrible iatrogenic disease, conquered by chlorine; and Pasteur's bacterial theory; Engineering: cars, aircraft, ships, airships; Metallurgy: novelties including rostfrei steel, electroplating; early plastics such as cellulose and bakelite; Farming: expansion of fertilisers, irrigation, machinery, preservation; Electricity: spread of electrical power; radio; cinema.
• Disruption in Europe and the lead-up to was was planned, with Jews in Poland carrying out atrocities; Jews in Spain ditto, leading to the 'Spanish Civil War'
• Planning for WW2: Rothschild and others expected a war; the planners wanted to have no 'Revolutions', and wanted full control of money after the next war
• Hungarian Jews played a specific role: Hitler must have been aware of Bela Kun. However, mostly in the future were: Joseph Hertz, Oppenheimer, Edward Teller, Stanley Ulam, Herman Kahn, Ralph Schoenman, George Soros, Frank Furedi, Arthur Koestler, Josef Rotblat, Wittgenstein, Popper, Gombrich, Freud, Szilard
• THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of MEIN KAMPF, Volume III, was never written
• Hitler could have written on the impact on him of of northern Germany: Berlin, Hamburg, east Prussia, and so on; the policies on Jews; the policies on employment; policies on money and trade; technical issues ... it might have had a subtitle rather different from 'Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice'. Hitler's Second Book, Zweites Buch though apparently genuine, was finished by 1928. I haven't read this book, which is, or was, online; perhaps a reader might compare it with Mein Kampf?
• The nearest thing to Volume III that I know of is a volume of 21 essays prefaced by von Ribbentrop, and printed in English in 1938, Germany Speaks. Its 21 essays are divided into four parts, though of course the issues are vast. The four sections are Fundamental Principles of the New Germany, How Germans Live - Labour, How Germans Live - Leisure; Germany and the World. Apart from a few quotations, nothing is by 'Herr Hitler', as he is always called. There's a black and white frontispiece. As is usual with books, sales figures are not given anywhere.
• Probably there was simply too much material for Hitler to cover. It's important to note that entire libraries in Germany were destroyed after the war ended, a characteristically barbaric set of acts by 'Jews', obviously intended to cover their tracks.
• This link shows (below) part of 'How Hitler defied the bankers' which may well have been the sort of thing Hitler would have written.
Top of page
Here is the Detailed Index from the 1939 USA translation of Mein Kampf
I've added this list of contents so that readers can infer a bit more easily the threads behind Hitler's reasoning and arguments. Almost all online translations only give the bare chapter headings. I've put [sic] following the usual convention if a word seems odd or out of place. The list is very long; so I've separated the comments by a 'pipe' (like this |) rather than a new line. - RW
Volume IPUBLISHERS' NOTE v | INTRODUCTION vii | DEDICATION xiii | PREFACE xv
Chapter I AT HOME 3The Young Ringleader 7 | Enthusiasm for War 8 | Drawing Talent 10 | Never State Official 12 | But Painter 13 | The Young Nationalist 15 | The German Ostmark 15 | The Fight for the German Nationality 16 | History Lessons 18 | History Favorite Subject 20 | The Habsburgs' Policy of Slavization 21 | The Young Wagnerian 23 | Father's Death 24 | Mother's Passing Away 25
Chapter II YEARS OF STUDY AND SUFFERING IN VIENNA... 26An Architect's Ability 27 | Five Years of Misery 29 | The Genius of Youth 30 | Unsocial Vienna 31 | The Contrasts 32 | The Unskilled Worker 34 The Uncertainty of Making a Living 35 | The Worker's Fate 36 | The Perpetual Mirage of Hunger 37 | Unfortunate Victims of Bad Social Conditions 37 | The Nature of Social Activity 39 | The Lack of 'National Pride' 41 | The Rats of Political Poisoning 42 | Martyrdom of the Worker's Child 43 | The Presupposition for 'Nationalization' 44 | Arduous Study 44 | The Art of Reading 46-49 | Social Democracy 50 | First Encounter with Social Democrats 51-53 | The Red Terror 53 | The Social Democrat Press 54 | The Psyche of the Masses 56 | Tactics of Marxism 58 | The Victims of the Red Tempters 59 | The Sins of the Bourgeoisie 59 | The Necessity of Union Activity 60 | The Struggle for Power 62 | Politization [sic] of the Unions 63 | The Threatening Thundercloud 64 | The Key to Social Democracy 66 | The Jewish Question 66 | The So-called World Press 68 | Criticism of Kaiser Wilhelm II 70 | The Greatest German Mayor 72 | Is This Also a Jew? 73 | The Zionists 74 | The Spiritual Pestilence of Jewry 76 | The Cunning of the 'World Press' 77 | The Manager of Vice 78 | The Jew as Leader of Social Democracy 78-79 | Jewish Dialectics 81 | The Cosmopolite [sic] Changes into a Fanatical Anti-Semite 83 Marxism and Nature 84
Chapter III GENERAL POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS FROM MY TIME IN VIENNA 85The Politician 86 | Political Thinking 87 | Vienna's Last Rise 88 | Germanity [sic] in Austria 89 Centrifugal Forces 96 | The Tragic Guilt of the Habsburgs 93 | The Revolution of 1848 94 | The Historical Liquidation of the Danube Monarchy 94 | Parliamentarianism 95 | The Soil of the Marxist World Plague 99 | Lack of Responsibility 100 | The Leader and the Masses 102 | The Incompetents and the Babblers 102 | Hiding Behind the Majority 103 | Lined up in a Queue 105 | The Parliamentarian Profiteers 106 | 'Public Opinion' 108 | The Machine for Educating the Masses 108 | The Cuttlefish [sic] 110 | The Will of the Majority 112 | The Intellectual Demi-monde 114 | The Gist of the Matter 115 | Germanic Democracy 116 | The Collapsing Dual Monarchy 119 | The Pan-German Movement 120 | The Dreams of the Forefathers 121 | The Rebellion of the German-Austrians 121 | Human Rights Breaks State Rights 123 | The Merit of the Pan-Germans in Austria 124 | Schoenerer and Lueger 125-129 | Pacifism of the German Bourgeoisie 130 | The Fight Against Parliamentarism 132 | Parliament and Peoples' Assembly 133 | 'Parliamentarians' Instead of Leaders 135 | The Magic of the Word 136 | The Power of Speech 137 | Mistakes of the Pan-German Movement 138 | Religion and Politics 139 | The Los-von-Rom Movement 140-152 | Concentration 152 | The Way of the Christian Social Party 153 | A Splash of Baptismal Water 154 | The Christian-Social Sham Anti-Semitism 156 | Pan-German and Christian-Social 158 | Rising Aversion Against the Habsburg State 159 | The Old Mosaic Picture 160 | The School of my Life 161-162
Chapter IV MUNICH 163Germany's Wrong Policy of Alliance 164 | The Jugglery of the Triple Alliance 165 | The Bearers of the Idea of the Alliance 166 | Insane Attitude 167 | The Four Ways of German Politics 169-179 | Pyramids Standing on their Points 180 | With England Against Russia 183 | The Dream of World-Peace 185 | With Russia Against England 188 | 'Peaceful Economic' Conquest - The Greatest Folly 188 | The Englishman as Seen by the German Cartoonist 189 | The Inner Weakness of the Triple Alliance 190 | Ludendorff on the Weakness of the Triple Alliance 192 | The Jewish-Socialist War-Agitators Against Russia 193 | The Tempting Legacy 193 | Warnings from German Conservatives 194 | The Nature of the State 195-201 | Symptoms of Decay 201 | The Years of Destruction 201 | Prattling Quackery 203
Chapter V THE WORLD WAR 204The Impending Catastrophe 205 | The Slav's Greatest Friend is Murdered 206 | Austria's Ultimatum 206 | The German Nation's Existence or Non-existence 207 | The Meaning of the Struggle for Freedom 210 | Joining a Bavarian Regiment 212 | The Baptism of Fire 213 | A Monument to Immortality 216 | The Parliamentarian Prattlers 216 | Drops of Wormwood in the General Enthusiasm 217 | Misunderstood Marxism 218 | What Was to be Done Now? 220 | The Use of Force 221 | Perseverance 222 | The Attack Against the View of Life 223 | The Same Rubbish 224 | The Great Gap 225
Chapter VI WAR PROPAGANDA 227Propaganda a Means 228 | The Purpose of Propaganda 229 | Propaganda Only for the Masses 230 | The Task of Propaganda 231-232 | The Psychology of Propaganda 233 | The Consequence of Half Measures 236 | German Mania of Objectivity 237 | Pacifistic Dishwater 238 | Propaganda for the Masses 239 | The Enemy's Propaganda 240
Chapter VII THE REVOLUTION 243The Enemy's First Leaflets 245 | Lamenting Letters from Home 246 | The Poison on the Front 246 | Wounded 247 | Boasting of One's Own Cowardice 248 | The Duty-Shirkers 249 | The Most Ingenious Trick of the Jew 252 | The Ammunition Strike - The Greatest Villainy 253 | Russia's Collapse 256-257 | The 'German' Revolution Awaited Its Entry 258 | The Result of the Ammunition Strike 258 | The Front and the Political Rascals 260 | Increase of the Decay 262 | The Younger Reinforcements Fail 264 | Poisoned by Mustard Gas 264 | 'Republic' 266 | In Vain all the Sacrifices 267 | Wretched and Miserable Criminals! 268 | Scoundrels Are Without Honor 269
Chapter VIII BEGINNING OF MY POLITICAL ACTIVITY . . . . 277Social Revolutionary Party 280-281 | Gottfried Feder 282 | The Task of the Program-Maker 283 | Program-Maker and Politician 284 | The Marathon Runners of History 286 | Breaking of the Tyranny of Interest 287 | The 'Instruction Officer' 289-290
Chapter IX THE 'GERMAN WORKERS' PARTY' 291'My Political Awakening' 296 | The Board Meeting in the 'Alte Rosenbad' 297-298 | The So-called 'Intelligentsia' 300 | The Seventh Member 301
Chapter X THE CAUSES OF THE COLLAPSE 302Premonitory Symptoms of Collapse 3O3-304 | The Great Lie 306 | The Culprits of the Collapse 307 | Do Nations Perish by Lost Wars? 308 | Among the Germans Every Third Man a Traitor 311 | The Great Masters of Lying 313 | Diseases of National Bodies 314 | The Signs of Decay 315 | The Idol of Mammon 316 | Labor as the Object of Speculation 319 | Half Measures - One of the Most Evil Symptoms of Decay 322 | The Gravediggers of the Monarchy 323 | The Meaning of the Monarchy 324 | The Cowards of 1918 326 | Cowardice Towards Responsibility 327 | Three Groups of Readers 328 | The Pretended 'Freedom of the Press' 330 | Mass Poisoning of the Nation 330 | Tactics of the Jewish Press 331 | The Result of Our Semi-Education 334 | The 'Decent' Press 335 | Syphilis 336 | The Miserable Products of Financial Expediency 337 | The 'Defining of Attitude' 338 | The Sin Against the Blood and the Degradation of the Race 339 | The Task of the Nation 341 | Prostitution - A Disgrace to Mankind 342 | Marriage Not an End in Itself 343 | Education of Youth 345-346 | Premature and Prematurely Old 348 | One of the Most Colossal Tasks 349 | The 'Protective Paragraph' 350 | The Energy for the Fight for Health 351 | The Bolshevism of Art 352 | The Decay of the Theater 355 | The Tainting of the Great Past 356 | Meaning and Purpose of Revolutions 358 | Intellectual Preparation for Political Bolshevism 359 | 'Inner Experience' 360 | 'Human Settlements' 360 | Monuments of the Community 362 | Department Store and Hotel - Characteristic Expression of Culture 363 | The Religious Situation 364 | Organic State Laws and Dogmas 366 | Political Abuse of Religion 367 | Without Political Aims 368 | The Failure of Parliamentarism 369 | Half-hearted Solutions 370 | The Lie of the German 'Militarism' 374 | The 'Idea of Risk' 376 | The Parliamentarian Head, the Misfortune of the Navy 377 | Villains, Scoundrels, Rascals, and Criminals 378 | The German Advantages 380 | Parade and Public Kitchen 381 | The Stability of the State Authority 382 | The Greatest Factor of Value - The Army 383 | The Greatest School of the German Nation 384 | The Incomparable Body of Officials 386 | The State Authority 387 | The Ultimate Cause of the Collapse 388
Chapter XI NATION AND RACE 389The Race 390-391 | The Result of All Race-crossing 392 | Man and Idea 394 | Race and Culture 396 | Life is a Struggle 397 | Founders of Culture 398 | The Mirror of the Past 400 | The Ingenious Race 402 | The Aryan is the Bearer of Cultural Development 404 | The Loss of the Purity of the Blood 406 | The Aryan's Will to Sacrifice Himself 407 | Purest Idealism - Deepest Knowledge 411 | The Aryan and the Jew 412 | The 'Clever' Jew 412 | Jewry's Instinct of Self-Preservation 414 | Judaism's Sham Culture 416 | The Jewish Ape 417 | The Parasite 419 | The First Great Lie 421 | The Jewish Religion 422 | Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion 423 | The Development of Judaism 425 | The Final Goal of Judaism 435 | The 'Factory Worker' 436 | Employer and Employee 438 | The Tactics of Judaism 440 | The Nucleus of the 'Marxist' View of Life 441 | The Organization of the Marxist World Doctrine 443 | The Central Organization of International World Cheating 447 | Dictatorship of the Proletariat 449 | The Great, Final Revolution 450 | Bastardized Nations 452 | The Sham Prosperity of the Old Reich 453 | A Germanic State of the German Nation 457
Chapter XII THE FIRST PERIOD IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS' PARTY 456A People Torn in Two Parts 457 | The Lacking Will for Self-Preservation 459 | The Winning of the Broad Masses 461 | The Weak Momentum 462 | The Best Property of the Nation 463 | The Nationalization of the Masses 464 | The Demands for This 465 | The Smashing of Parliamentarianism 479 | The Ingenious Idea 481 | The Organization of the National Socialist Movement 482 | Fanaticism 486 | The Honorary Scar 488 | Personality Cannot be Substituted 488 | The Eternal Hands 489 | The Speech Evening 490 | The First Meeting 491 | The First Success 492 | Fight Against the Red Terror 494 | The Second Meeting 495 | The Shaping of the Young Movement 496 | German Folkish Wandering Scholars 498 | Folkish Comedians 499 | 'Folkish' 501 | Spiritual Marches Against Berlin 502 | The 'Spiritual Weapon' 503 | Folkish Moths [sic] 504 The First Great Mass Meeting 505 | Fraternization Between Marxism and Center 507 | Pöhner and Frick, 58 | The Foundations of the Coming State 510 | The Victory of the First Great Demonstration 512 | The Coming Rise 515
POSTER APPENDIX [sic] 517
Chapter I VIEW OF LIFE AND PARTY 563Bourgeois 'Program Committees' 564 | From the Life of a 'People's Representative' 565 | Marxism and Democratic Principle $68 | View of Life Against View of Life 570 | The Conception 'Folkish' 573 | From Religious Feeling to Apodictic [sic] Belief 575 From 'Folkish' Feeling to Political Creed 576 | From Creed to Community of Struggle 576 Marxism Against Race and Personality 579 | Folkish Attitude Towards Race and Personality 579 | The Challenge of the Free Play of Forces 581 | Condensation in the Party 582 | Crystallization of a Political Creed 583
Chapter II THE STATE 584Three Reigning Conceptions of the State 585-587 | False Notion of 'Germanization' 588 | Only Land Can Be Germanized 591 | The State No End in Itself 592 | Cultural Level Conditioned by Race 593 | National Socialist Conception of the State 594 | Viewpoints for Judging the State 596 | Consequences of Our Racial Dismemberment 598 | Mission of the German People 600 | Task of the German State 601 | World History is Made by Minorities 603 | The Bastard Must Succumb 604 | Natural Process of Regeneration of the Race 605 | Danger of Race-Mixing 606 'Folkish ' State and Race Hygiene 608 | Race-pure Border Colonies 610 | Call to German Youth 611 | The Bourgeoisie's Lack of Energy 612 | Healthy Body Healthy Spirit 614 | Educational Maxims of the 'Folkish' State 615 | The Value of Sports 616 | Suggestive Force of Self-Confidence 618 | Suggestive Force of United Action 618 | Control Between School Age and Military Service Age 619 | The Army as Final and Highest School 620 | Character Formation 621 | Education in Discretion 622 | Cultivation of Will Power and Determination 623 | Fostering Readiness for Responsibility 625 | Principles of Scientific Schooling 626 | No Overburdening of the Brain 626 | Principles of Language Instruction 627 | Principles of History Instruction 628 | General Training - Professional Training 630 | Value of Humanistic Training 631 | Current 'Patriotic' Education 632 | Inspiring Force of Great Models 633 | Awakening National Pride 633 | Fear of Chauvinism is Impotence 636 | Inculcation of a Racial Sense 636 | Human Selection 637 | Capability and Learning 638 | Training Prodigies 640 | State Selection of the Qualified 640 | The Catholic Church's Link with the People 643 | Appraisal of Work 645 | Grading of Services 649 | Ideal and Reality 650
Chapter III SUBJECTS AND CITIZENS OF THE STATE .... 656How One Becomes a Citizen Today 657 | Citizens - State Subjects - Aliens 658 | The State Citizen Master of the Reich 659
Chapter IV PERSONALITY AND THE CONCEPTION OF THE NATIONAL STATE 660Construction on Aristocratic Principle 661 | Rise of Human Culture 662 | Personality and Progress of Culture 663 | Value of Personality 664 | The Majority Principle 666 | Marxism Denies Personality 666 | Marxism is Uncreative 668 | The Best State Constitution 669 | Advisory Chambers - Responsible Leaders 670 | Towards the Future State 672
Chapter V | VIEW OF LIFE AND ORGANIZATION 673Struggle and Criticism 674 | Views of Life are Intolerant 676 | Parties Seek Compromises 676 | Community on the Basis of New View of Life 677 | Leadership and Following 678 | Necessity of Guiding Principles 680 | Formulation of Guiding Principles 681 | Stability of Program 682 | Spirit, Not Letter, Decides 683 | National Socialism and Folkish Idea 684 | The Sham Folkish 685
Chapter VI THE STRUGGLE OF THE EARLY DAYS - THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SPOKEN WORD 695Struggle Against Poisoning Propaganda 696 | Against the Current 699 | Politics at Far Sight 700 | Oratorical Experiences 701 | Enlightenment on the Peace Treaties 702 | Speech More Effective than Writing 704 | Psychological Aspects of Oratory 704 | Oratory and Writing in the Service of Agitation 705 | Psychological Conditions of Oratorical Effectiveness 709 | Orators and Revolution 711 | Printed Speech Disappoints 712 | Bethmann and Lloyd George as Orators 712 | Necessity of Mass Meetings 715 | Significance of Community Feeling 715 | Orators Who Break Down 716
Chapter VII THE STRUGGLE WITH THE RED FRONT . . . 717Bourgeois 'Mass Meetings' 718 | National Socialist Mass Meetings 720 | The Equivocal Red Posters 721 | Vacillating Tactics of the Marxists 723 | Opponents Make Us Known 723 | Law-Breaking Police Procedure 724 | Psychologically Correct Rally Management 725 | Marxist Rally Technique 726 | Bourgeois Rally Technique 727 | National Socialist Order Troops 729 | Significance of the Unified Symbol 730 | Old and New Black-Red-Gold 731 | Old and New Reich Flag 733 | The National Socialist Flag 734 | Interpretation of the National Socialist Symbol 736 | The First Circus Rally 739 | Rally After Rally 743 | Futile Attempts at Disruption 746 | The Meeting Continues 749
Chapter VIII THE STRONG MAN is MIGHTIEST ALONE . . . 750Right of Priority in a Movement 751 | The Struggle for Leadership 753 | Austria and Prussia 754 | Causes of Folkish Dismemberment 757 | The Formation of Joint Efforts 758 | The Essence of Joint Efforts 760 | The Collapse of Joint Efforts 762
Chapter IX FUNDAMENTAL THOUGHTS ON THE MEANING AND THE ORGANIZATION OF THE STORM TROOPS 764The Three Pillars of Authority 764 | The Three Classes of Folk Bodies 766 | The Sacrifice of the Best 767 | The Hyperfecundity of the Bad 768 | Resulting Disorganization 770 | Founding of the Free Corps 771 | Misplaced Leniency to Deserters 773 | Deserters and Revolution 773 | Fear of the Front Soldiers 775 | Collaboration of Left Parties 776 | The Capture of the Bourgeois 777 | Capitulation of the Bourgeois 779 | Why Did the Revolution Succeed? 780 | Passivity of the State Guardians 781 | Capitulation to Marxism 782 | Breakdown of the National Parties 783 | Without an Idea, No Force for Struggle 784 | Advocacy of the Folkish Idea 786 | Need for Guard Troops 787 | Guarding the Nation, Not the State 790 | Self-Protection, Not 'Defense League' 791 | Why No Defense Leagues 792 | Impossibility of Proper Drilling 793 | Counter-Tendency of the State 795 | The Sacrifice of Our Army 796 | No Secret Organizations 797 | The Danger of Secret Organizations 798 | Shall Traitors be 'Eliminated'? 800 | Sport Training of the S.A. 801 | Designation and Publicity 802 | First Parade in Munich 805 | The March to Coburg 806 | The Reception in Coburg 806 | Red Demonstration 807 | The S.A. Stands the Test as a Vital Organization of Struggle 809 | The End of 1923 810
Chapter X FEDERALISM AS A MASK 816War Associations and Anti-Prussian Sentiment 817 | Anti-Prussian Agitation as a Diversion Maneuver 818 | Kurt Eisner, 'Bavarian Particularist' 819 | My Struggle Against the Anti-Prussian Incitement 820 | 'Federative Activity' 822 | Jewish Incitement Tactic 823 | Anti-Semitism and Defense 824 | The Jew Creates Confessional Conflict 825 | The Curse of Religious Wars 826 | Necessity for Agreement 827 | Struggle Against the 'Center' 828 Federal or Unified State? 830 | The German Federal State 831 | Bismarck's Creation 832 | The Revolution and the Federal State 833 | The Policy of Redemption and the Forfeiture of the Federal States' Sovereignty 834 | Results of Reich Foreign Policy 836 | National State or Slave Colony 837 | Unifying Tendencies 838 | Abuse of Centralization 839 | Oppression of the Individual States 841 | Centralization Benefits Party Coffers 841 | Reich State Sovereignty 842 | Cultural Tasks of the Provinces 842 | Unification of the Army 843 | One People - One State 845
Chapter XI PROPAGANDA AND ORGANIZATION 846Theoretician - Organizer - Agitator 847 | Followers and Members 849 | Propaganda and Organization 850 | The Power for Struggle of Activistic [sic] Selection 853 | Limitation on Membership Enrolment 854 | Frightening the Half-Hearted 856 | Reorganization of the Movement 857 | Suspension of 'Parliamentarism' 858 | Responsibility of the Chief 859 | Principle of the Leader Idea 859 | The Embryonic State of the Movement 860 | Building the Movement 861
Chapter XII THE TRADE-UNION QUESTION 868Arc Trade Unions Necessary? 870 | National Socialist Trade Unions? 871 | Future Chambers of Economy 875 | Corporation Chambers and Economic Parliament 876 | No Dual Unions 877 | First the Battle for the View of Life, Later the Liberation of the Individual 880 | Better no National Socialist Trade Union than a Miscarriage 882
Chapter XIII GERMAN POLICY OF ALLIANCE AFTER THE WAR . . 885Reasons for the Breakdown 886 | The Goal of Foreign Policy: Freedom for Tomorrow 888 | Precondition for the Liberation of the Lost Regions 888 | Strengthening of Continental Power 892 | False Continental Policy Before the War 894 | European Relations of Power 894 | England and Germany 895 | Shifting of the 'Balance of Power' 896 | England's War Aim Unachieved 898 | The Hegemony of France 899 | Political Aims of France and England 899 | On the Possibilities of Alliances 900 | Necessity of Community of Interests 901 | Is Germany Capable of an Alliance? 903 | The Will to Destruction of Jewish Finance 905 | Jewish World Incitement Against Germany 906 | Adaptation to the Mentalities of Nations 907 | Two Possible Allies: England - Italy 908 | Hobnobbing with France 909 | The South Tyrol Question 911 Frustration of German-Italian Agreement 915 | Who Betrayed the South Tyrol 915 | Not Armed Force, But the Politics of Alliance 917 | Three Questions on the Politics of Alliance 918 | The First Symptom of German Rebirth 919 | Neglected Exploiting of the Versailles Treaty 920 | 'Lord Bless Our Struggle' 921 | Inversion of the Anti-German Psychosis 922 | The Will to Liberation Struggle 923 | Concentration on One Opponent 925 | Settling Accounts with One's Own Traitors 925 | War of the Nations Against Jewry 927 | England and Jewry 928 | Japan and Jewry 929 | Jewry, the World Enemy 931
Chapter XIV EASTERN ORIENTATION OR EASTERN POLICY . . 933Prejudice in Questions of Foreign Policy 934 | Significance of the State's Territorial Extensiveness 935 | Area and World Power 936 | French and German Colonial Policy 937 | Out of the Constricted Existence! 939 | The Strength of a State is Relative 941 | The Fruits of a Millennium of German Policy 941 | No Hurrah-Patriotism! 943 | The Call to the Old Borders 944 | Foreign Policy Aim of the National Socialists 947 | No Sentimentality in Foreign Policy 948 | Germanic Elements in Russia 951 | End of Jewish Domination in Russia? 952 | Bismarck's Russian Policy 953 | The 'League of Oppressed Nations' 954 | Is England's Hold on India Shaking? 955 | Is England's Hold on the East Shaking? 957 | German Alliance with Russia? 957 Germany-Russia Before the War 960 | A Political Testament 963 | Advantages of an Anglo-German-Italian Alliance 964 | The Preconditions for an Eastern Policy 965 | The National Socialists 966
Chapter XV EMERGENCY DEFENSE AS A RIGHT 968Jewish Leadership of Foreign Policy 970 | Seven Years to 1813 - Seven Years to Locarno 971 | Persecution of Unpleasant Prophets 972 | France's Immovable War Aim 974 | France's Immovable Political Aim 977 | Settlement with France 978 | The Occupation of the Ruhr District 979 | Foreign and Domestic Political Results of the Ruhr Occupation 979 | What Should Have Been Done After the Ruhr Occupation? 981 | The Neglected Accounting with Marxism 983 | Not Weapons, but Will, Decides! 987 | Cuno's [sic] Road 987 | The 'United Front' 988 | Passive Resistance 989 | The Position of the National Socialists 990 | November 1923 992 | Our Dead as Monitors of Duty 993
CONCLUSION 994INDEX 995
Top of page
Notes on 1969 translation 'Hitler's Mein Kampf' by Ralph Manheim, and the introduction by Donald Cameron Watt
I'd heard the name before; Watt spoke briefly at the David Irving libel trial in 2000. Let's burrow more.
We find Donald Cameron Watt was a lecturer in International History at the University of London and later the LSE (London School of Economics). 'He has also worked as the Official Historian to the Cabinet Office and has been the author, editor or co-editor of many books including Survey of International Affairs, Contemporary History in Europe, Current British Foreign Policy and Succeeding John Bull: America in Britain’s place. He has also been on the editorial board of many journals within his field.'
At the time of writing his introduction (1969 - American mass slaughter in Vietnam was past its peak, but still very profitable) Mr Watt was 'Reader in International History' 'in' the University of London. This is not the place to discuss money and status and bias in what's claimed to be higher education, but even then there were large numbers of Professors of Modern History. Possibly Watt was chosen because he'd written on Hitler's youth and 'apprenticeship' ten years earlier—two of his pieces are included in his bibliography of lightweight 'Further Reading' on Hitler, which includes incidentally 'Trevor Roper' deprived of his two barrels. Possibly Watt was himself Jewish; the name 'Cameron' is reminiscent of a modern Jewish Prime Minister, and the 'banjo wire of hate' often twangs loudly as Watt, or 'Watt', evades actual discussion of actual Jews, or of their supposedly religious writings, or their ludicrous claims to have connections directly to 'G-d'; he reads like an utterly typical racially bigoted 'Jew'. He makes a gnomic remark on Hitler's grandfather possibly being a Jew. He says nothing about deaths of non-Jews, often a Jewish imprimatur. And of course he hates Hitler in a visceral way remote from his supposed concerns of objective assessment; maybe there's some snarling genetic reaction against truth and honesty.
Watt's main works appear to be: (1984) The snappily-titled: Succeeding John Bull: America in Britain's Place 1900-1975. A Study of the Anglo-American Relationship and World Politics in the Context of British and American Foreign-Policy- Making in the Twentieth Century. And (1990) How the War Came which appears to be a long volume containing anecdotes about large numbers of diplomats just before 1939, culled from records, and not containing anything about such events as provocations against Germany. And I don't know of any evidence that Watt knows about Jewish beliefs, Jews running finance, or Jews buying up media, or Jews committing mass murder in the USSR, Germany, Vietnam, and other places. His comments seem entirely conventional in that he blindly looks the other way. So it seems highly unlikely his books are worth opening. Some idea perhaps of the depth of his research comes from this comment on a Brunel University site: The D.C. Watt Collection is housed on the first floor of the Library. It was originally acquired as a donation from D.C. Watt himself, by the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies for use on MA Intelligence and Security Studies course. It was donated to the Library in summer 2008. Although the focus is on intelligence, it is likely to appeal to students on any courses within the broad fields of politics, international relations and history. The collection consists mainly of books, but also includes several journal runs: Intelligence and National Security, Jane’s Intelligence Review and Cold War History. It is freely accessible and all the books can be borrowed by the University’s students and staff. If that's research, the Sun press cuttings are 'research'. (NB on the subject of really crummy 'intelligence' books, read my review of Alridge on British Intelligence and GCHQ).
Watts includes material of unstated origin on sales and translations of Mein Kampf. It reads like publishers in-house chat. Here's his information on non-German editions: '... Danish (1934), Swedish (1934 and 1941), Portuguese (1934), Bulgarian (1934), Spanish (1935), Hungarian (1935), Arabic (1936), Chinese (1936), Czech (1936), Japanese (1928) [sic; 1938?], French (1934 illegally, and, heavily expurgated, 1939), Norwegian (194), Finnish (1941) and Tamil (1944). Since the war versions in Spanish and Arabic have continued to circulate.' There are one or two languages not on this list and not mentioned by Watt: Russian (the USSR was crushed by Jews), Polish (Poland had lots of Jews), Ukrainian (many millions killed by Jews there).
Watt's introduction has quite large chunks on Hitler's boyhood and youth; luckily, he knows more about Hitler's upbringing than Hitler himself. Another larger chunk of the book refers to Hitler long after his book was written. Watt knows Hitler wanted war; after all, he'd been told that by the rather oleaginous Dimbleby of the BBC, by the Times (edited among others by E H Carr), by the obviously unbiased Churchill, and by those nice Americans, usually Americanised Jews. A person new to official history might think that a world war is quite a serious event, and maybe attention should be paid to peace offers by Hitler, the immense arming of Stalin despite his being run by Jewish butchers, the extent Americans were under control of the Federal Reserve, and other such minor events. But Watt knows without having to do any such work.
We're accustomed now to the unanalytical Jewish view of Hitler, who had the gall to discuss their methods. But even in 1969, nearly a quarter of a century after the war nominally ended, there was no actual need for it. Connoisseurs of this sort of thing might wonder whether there was a link between claims of genocide, including of whites, (which of course is ignored by Watt in all cases; the only genocide that concerns him was the fake involving 'Jews') and the desire for mass immigration. In fact, of course, there was, and is. However Watt got his Professorship, and the the related tedious task of brainwashing the unfortunates who had to attend his presumably junk lectures.
I haven't attempted to check what Watt is up to now; I'd guess retired, though my impression from retired Jewish puppets is that they get the salary equivalent of the minimum wage. Maybe he has a pension fund worth nothing as a result of Jewish fraud. After all, there are so many Jews out there wanting money for nothing; and so many books, films, newspapers, TV and radio programmes, think-tanks, BBC, 'charities', pressure groups, hack writers, presenters and speakers, Jewish-run websites and counter-websites and crypto-websites, and things like 'Common Purpose' and Trade Union bosses, all calling for money; and so many legal people, party members, parliamentarians, senators and what-have-you, and thugs needed to watch for and suppress free speech.
His Irving libel trial appearance Day 7 of the trial in January 2000 has a possibly plaintive comment:
IRVING: You describe yourself as an historian, writer and broadcaster. You are all three things?
WATT: These are the various sources of my income, yes.
Suggesting maybe his usefulness is over. Certainly the portentous discussion on history and bias and careful assessment of records bears little relationship to actual events.
Watt is exactly similar to scientists who refuse to examine the roots of their subjects, and are careful not to try to unearth anything strange that they have been convincingly told is lurking there. Watt is like a stupid follower of Bacon, who believes in inductively collecting evidence for examination—but always turns a deaf ear to Jewish matters, while compulsively checking on irreleventsia. Watt says Hitler claimed Aryans are unified, but Jews are individualistic, something like a complete reversal of Hitler's opinion, and the truth. Watt doesn't mention Bela Kun in Hungary and the damage he did; nor does he even mention Lenin and Americanised Jews and their murderous coup in Russia. He doesn't mention Rosa Luxemburg; he refers to the Jew Kurt Eisner's short rule in Germany (Hitler calls it the 'Revolution') as the 'total collapse'. He says nothing about Hitler's claims on Jewish behind-the-scenes corruption (entirely vindicated by more recent analogous evidence). It's worth pointing out that British sentiment against Jews was quite strong in this period, as Mass Observation's notes show.
Watt always refers to 'Nazis' though luckily we are spared 'Commies'. Watt seems to avoid 'fascist' as an all-purpose term of condemnation, probably because he knew Germany and Italy and their languages are not the same. But imagine any historian referring to the Irish as 'Prods' and 'Taigs'! It's quite funny to see his views on the 'British Tommy' and his camaraderie: of course, if you have weapons and are on top, you're in a good position for simple-minded cheeriness of the sort reassuring to Watt. Another supposed characteristic of Hitler at the time of Watt's introduction was that he was deemed to be lazy, idle, shiftless and so on, in bizarre contrast to Hitler's acid hatred of loafers, shirkers, and men incurring mild injury to escape war; not to mention his manifest energy. Watt's vocabulary follows all the dismal conventions of the time: Hitler staged a 'putsch' but the Jewish coup, or 'putsch' with infinitely more funding was a 'Revolution'. It's no surprise his figures are from the realms of unscrutinised parrotry: '.. [Jews] have between four and a half million and six million reasons for their anxieties.'
Let's not forget people like Watt failed to discuss (among many topics) mass murder in eastern Europe, mass murder in Korea and Vietnam, vast Jewish financial frauds, vast wastes on nuclear issues, propaganda, pressure groups. They were not harmless old fools; they traded the world and their countries for small amounts of money. Perhaps Watt will be robbed or attacked by gipsies, or die whilst being operated on by an untrained black 'surgeon'.
Top of page
Notes on Reviews (including reviews of Mein Kampf by Orwell, J G Ballard, 1939 newspapers, etc)
It's rather extraordinary that there are hardly any old reviews of Mein Kampf online. The easiest to find are by George Orwell (1940) and J G Ballard, a surrealist novelist (1969). (See below for the full text of both reviews, which, though not my copyright, are in any case widely available and I'd guess too short and too old for copyright concerns).
I searched rather carefully for reviews. A mixed bag of writers: Keynes, H G Wells, G B Shaw, C. P. Snow, Muggeridge, Lindbergh, Henry Ford, Mencken, Bertrand Russell, T S Eliot, Kipling, T E Lawrence ('of Arabia'), Arthur Balfour, D H Lawrence (the book was published, in German, about five years before Balfour's and Lawrence's death); and in the New Statesman and others, yielded nothing. Not even from Churchill, though he seems to have written reviews. There were (I found) reviews published by British papers—Daily Telegraph March 23 1939/ Times, March 24 1939/ Spectator, March 24 1939/ Times Literary Supplement, March 25 1939, but none of these are easily available. The same appears true of American papers. Very likely this is because there were pro-Hitler signs in these reviews; and very likely they were of poor quality. But a mark of continued, deep, Jewish censorship that reviews scarcely exist online. Note that A J P Taylor is reported to have said he never read it.
Both these writers, Orwell and Ballard, have in common a complete failure to understand 'Jews'. (The quotation marks hint at their true origin). The 'master race' idea is Jewish, though neither of these writers, perhaps to their credit, use this phrase. Neither mention the part played by Jews in Russia, in particular. Neither mention the First World War, a cataclysm which Germany tried to reverse by their peace offer in 1916. Neither mention the Balfour Declaration, or the intrusion of the USA into the war as a result of Jewish pressure, and blackmail by Jews of President Wilson. Neither mention Versailles or Reparations.
Orwell has no idea that Jews ran the Social Democrat movement in Germany (or the 'Labour Party' in Britain). And he had no idea about finance as opposed to ordinary peoples' money. (See this passage Paper Money: Incentive for Harm, and Warrant for Genocide in which I try to explain the power of the Fed and Bank of England).
Ballard was obviously influenced by the extremely odd Jew, Freud, who by now, surely, is completely discredited. It has to be said that Ballard, in his favour, was aware of genocide in Vietnam, and worked it into his writing: one of his stories has (from memory) American 'soldiers' taking snap photos of Vietnamese women's genitals after they raped them, a passage that almost made me physically sick. But probably, like Orwell, he was dependent on Jewish publishers for his income. Note his comment on Hitler being 'half-educated', which Orwell steers clear of. I wonder if Ballard thought of himself, or anyone else, as 'fully-educated'?
Both these authors had some style, at least, despite their lack of courage and knowledge; it's safe to assume other reviews of the time were even more lightweight, repetitive, and lacking in insight. It's truly amazing how little attention was paid to the claims in Mein Kampf of Jewish use of money in the most cruel and outrageous ways. Factual matters were ignored, as indeed they had to be to maintain the fantasy of Jewish innocence.
More on Orwell: Orwell's review is long (by the standards of ordinary reviews) and deserves a few remarks:–
Orwell was born in 1903 and therefore too young to participate in the First World War; he had little war experience. (For a hostile view of Orwell, see my 'Orwell as useful idiot' with comments on the Spanish 'Civil War', in fact yet another Jewish attempt at a coup, and on nuclear weapons). Orwell was not shelled, gassed, or machine-gunned.
Orwell claims that Hitler wanted a huge German empire, 'a horrible brainless empire'. In fact, in Vol I Chap X, on the Collapse of the 2nd Reich, Hitler has some (relatively) lyrical passages on the 'Acropolis, ...temples and the thermae,... stadia, circuses, aqueducts, basilicas, etc.' 'Thus monuments originated which were suited to attach the individual inhabitant to his city in a manner which today seems to us sometimes almost incomprehensible. For what he had before his eyes were not the miserable houses of private owners but the magnificent buildings of the whole community'. Vol II Chap IV, on the People's State, Hitler gives quite a long account of human progress, inventions, and so on; '.. a human community is well organized only when it facilitates to the highest degree individual creative forces and utilizes their work for the benefit of the community.' Hitler of course also attributed all, or almost all, creativity to 'Aryans' an hypothesis which at least is testable in principle. Orwell evades this issue, as of course most people do who've been terrified by modern laws and police methods. And of course Orwell was largely a philistine, interested not in (say) Wagner, Schiller, Goethe and German science, but in boys' adventure stories and adults' novels.
Orwell knew almost nothing of Jewish behind-the-scenes power, as is proven by his infantile essay on 'Anti-Semitism' and his inability to understand finance, as opposed to manufacturing.
His claim the Hitler helped the 'property owning classes' and destroyed the left shows he has no idea that the supposed 'left' was a Jewish fake, as in the USSR. The property-owning classes may or may not have been changed by hyperinflation; obviously debt, including war reparations, was generally wiped out; but the net debt in a country isn't visible in the way factories are; the net effect on (Prof Evans quotes someone to this effect) mortgage-holders and shareholders and government debtors and creditors, and on Jews and others controlling paper money, is an interesting and important topic, but not one in which Orwell showed the slightest competence.
(Some readers might like my short review of the 1935 novel Mr Norris Changes Trains - NB large file of reviews may be slow to download).
Top of page
Review of Hitler's Mein Kampf by Eric Blair ('George Orwell') in the New English Weekly March 21st, 1940Top of page
Mein Kampf reviewed by George OrwellIt is a sign of the speed at which events are moving that Hurst and Blackett's unexpurgated edition of Mein Kampf, published only a year ago, is edited from a pro-Hitler angle. The obvious intention of the translator's preface and notes is to tone down the book's ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light as possible. For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism.
Then suddenly it turned out that Hitler was not respectable after all. As one result of this, Hurst and Blackett's edition was reissued in a new jacket explaining that all profits would be devoted to the Red Cross. Nevertheless, simply on the internal evidence of Mein Kampf, it is difficult to believe that any real change has taken place in Hitler's aims and opinions. When one compares his utterances of a year or so ago with those made fifteen years earlier, a thing that strikes one is the rigidity of his mind, the way in which his world-view doesn't develop. It is the fixed vision of a monomaniac and not likely to be much affected by the temporary manoeuvres of power politics. Probably, in Hitler's own mind, the Russo-German Pact represents no more than an alteration of time-table. The plan laid down in Mein Kampf was to smash Russia first, with the implied intention of smashing England afterwards. Now, as it has turned out, England has got to be dealt with first, because Russia was the more easily bribed of the two. But Russia's turn will come when England is out of the picture--that, no doubt, is how Hitler sees it. Whether it will turn out that way is of course a different question.
Suppose that Hitler's programme could be put into effect. What he envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of "living room" (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or thereabouts), a horrible brainless empire in which, essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young men for war and the endless breeding of fresh cannon-fodder. How was it that he was able to put this monstrous vision across? It is easy to say that at one stage of his career he was financed by the heavy industrialists, who saw in him the man who would smash the Socialists and Communists. They would not have backed him, however, if he had not talked a great movement into existence already. Again, the situation in Germany, with its seven million unemployed, was obviously favourable for demagogues. But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches .... The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs—and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett's edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can't win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the films that one sees turn upon some such theme.
Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all "progressive" thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won't do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don't only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin's militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has said to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they will get sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the last war. After a few years of slaughter and starvation "Greatest happiness of the greatest number" is a good slogan, but at this moment "Better an end with horror than a horror without end" is a winner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.Review of Hitler's Mein Kampf by J. G. Ballard in New Worlds, Number 196, December, 1969.Top of page
Alphabets Of UnreasonThe psychopath never dates.
Hitler's contemporaries - Baldwin, Chamberlain, Herbert Hoover - seem pathetically fusty figures, with their frock coats and wing collars, closer to the world of Edison, Carnegie and the hansom cab than to the first fully evolved modern societies over which they presided, areas of national consciousness formed by mass-produced newspapers and consumer goods, advertising and tele-communications. By comparison Hitler is completely up-to-date, and would be equally at home in the sixties (and probably even more so in the seventies) as in the twenties. The whole apparatus of the Nazi super-state, its nightmare uniforms and propaganda, seems weirdly turned-on, providing just that element of manifest insanity to which we all respond in the H-Bomb or Viet Nam - perhaps one reason why the American and Russian space programmes have failed to catch our imaginations is that this quality of explicit psychopathology is missing.
Certainly, Nazi society seems strangely prophetic of our own - the same maximising of violence and sensation, the same alphabets of unreason and the fictionalising of experience. Goebbels in his diaries remarks that he and the Nazi leaders had merely done in the realm of reality what Dostoevski had done in fiction. Interestingly, both Goebbels and Mussolini had written novels, in the days before they were able to get to grips with their real subject matter - one wonders if they would have bothered now, with the fiction waiting to be manipulated all around them.
Hitler's 'novel', Mein Kampf (Hutchinson, 1939) was written in 1924, nearly a decade before he came to power, but is a remarkably accurate prospectus of his intentions, not so much in terms of finite political and social aims as of the precise psychology he intended to impose on the German people and its European vassals. For this reason alone it is one of the most important books of the 20th century, and well worth reprinting, despite the grisly pleasures its anti-semitic ravings will give to the present generation of racists. How far does Hitler the man come through the pages of this book? In the newsreels Hitler tends to appear in two roles - one, the demagogic orator, ranting away in a state apparently close to neurotic hysteria, and two, a benevolent and slightly eccentric kapellmeister sentimentally reviewing his SS bodyguard, or beaming down at a picked chorus of blond-haired German infants. Both these strands are present in Mein Kampf - the hectoring, rhetorical style, shaking with hate and violence, interspersed with passages of deep sentimentality as the author rhapsodises to himself about the mystical beauty of the German landscape and its noble, simple-hearted peoples.
Apart from its autobiographical sections, the discovery by a small Austrian boy of his 'Germanism', Mein Kampf contains three principal elements, the foundation stones, walls and pediment of a remarkably strong paranoid structure. First, there are Hitler's views on history and race, a quasi-biological system which under-pins the whole basis of his political thought and explains almost every action he ever committed. Second, there are his views on the strict practicalities of politics and the seizure of power, methods of political organisation and propaganda. Third, there are his views on the political future of the united Germanies, its expansionist foreign policy and general attitude to the world around it.
The overall tone of Mein Kampf can be seen from Hitler's original title for the testament: A Four and a Half Years Struggle Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice: A Reckoning with the Destroyers of the Nazi Party Movement. It was the publisher, Max Amann, who suggested the shorter and far less revealing Mein Kampf, and what a sigh he must have breathed when Hitler agreed. Hitler's own title would have been far too much of a giveaway, reminding the readers of the real sources of Hitler's anti-semitic and racialist notions.
Reading Hitler's paranoid rantings against the Jews, one is constantly struck by the biological rather than political basis of his entire thought and personality. His revulsion against the Jews was physical, like his reaction against any peoples, such as the Slavs and Negroes, whose physique, posture, morphology and pigmentation alerted some screaming switchboard of insecurity within his own mind.
What is interesting is the language in which he chose to describe these obsessions - primarily faecal, one assumes, from his endless preoccupation with 'cleanliness'. Rather than use economic, social or political arguments against the Jews, Hitler concentrated almost solely on this inflated biological rhetoric. By dispensing with any need to rationalise his prejudices, he was able to tap an area of far deeper unease and uncertainty, and one more-over which his followers would never care to expose too fully to the light of day.
In the unanswerable logic of psychopathology, the Jews became the scapegoats for all the terrors of toilet-training and weaning. The constant repetition of the words 'filth', 'vileness', 'abscess', 'hostile', 'shudder', endlessly reinforce these long- repressed feelings of guilt and desire.
In passing, it is curious to notice that Hitler's biological interpretations of history have a number of striking resemblances to those of Desmond Morris. In both writers one finds the same reliance on the analogy of the lower mammals, on a few basic formulas of behaviour such as 'struggle', 'competition', 'defence of territory'. There is the same simple schematic view of social relationships, the same highly generalised assertions about human behaviour that are presented as proven facts. Hitler talks without definition of 'lower races' in the same way that Morris refers to 'primitive societies' and 'simple communities'. Both are writing for half-educated people whose ideas about biology and history come from popular newspaper and encyclopaedia articles, and whose interest in these subjects is a barely transparent cover for uneasy fantasies about their own bodies and emotions.
In this preface, the translator of Mein Kampf describes it as written in the style of a self-educated modern South German with a talent for oratory. In this respect Hitler was one of the rightful inheritors of the 20th century - the epitome of the half-educated man. Wandering about the streets of Vienna shortly before the first World War, his head full of vague artistic yearnings and clap-trap picked up from popular magazines, whom does he most closely resemble? Above all, Leopold Bloom, his ostensible arch-enemy, wandering around Joyce's Dublin at about the same time, his head filled with the same clap-trap and the same yearnings. Both are the children of the reference library and the self-improvement manual, of mass newspapers creating a new vocabulary of violence and sensation. Hitler was the half-educated psychopath inheriting the lavish communications systems of the 20th century. Forty years after his first abortive seizure of power he was followed by another unhappy misfit, Lee Harvey Oswald, in whose Historic Diary we see the same attempt by the half-educated to grapple with the information overflow that threatened to drown him.
Extract from How Hitler Defied the Bankers (added 13 Dec 2015)
When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation's costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany.
Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private (Jewish controlled) banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.
Nothing like this had ever happened before - the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people's savings and businesses. On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international (mainly Jewish) bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power. At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany.
Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.
The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German government (not the international bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates. In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates.
Under the National Socialists, Germany's money wasn't backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.
Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work. Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest.
Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers' denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Jewish-owned industries. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits. (Venezuela does the same thing today when it trades oil for commodities, plus medical help, and so on. Hence the bankers are trying to squeeze Venezuela.)
Germany's economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive superhighway.
Hjalmar Schacht, a Rothschild agent who was temporarily head of the German central bank, summed it up thus. . . An American banker had commented, "Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We've lots of money and that's real banking." Schacht replied, "You should come to Berlin. We don't have money. That's real banking."