Whats the best translation of this in english?
Best translation
Lucas Morales
Blake Thompson
learning german.
Kayden Flores
"I am a genocidal maniac who did evil for the hell of it." Translated by J.P. Coinblatt
Oliver Butler
My struggle
glad I could help
Eli Campbell
Sup Forums you never disappoint
Justin Stewart
King James Version
Nolan Johnson
Ford translation from what I've heard.
Xavier Myers
STALAG version, not an ironic answer
Kevin Rivera
I can confirm this.
Bentley Gutierrez
From what I understand reading it in German is really the only way to truly understand it as it was meant to be read. All the translations seem to have significant problems and the best alternative to German seems to be reading all the translations and making your own conclusions from there.
Nathan Carter
How do you even obtain a proper german copy?
I mean one that isn't annotated with "OY VEY, none of this stuff on this page is true, the 6 trillion are spinning in their graves if you even CONSIDER this to be true, you anti Israelite!"
Jason Clark
why
how hard can it be. This isn't poetry or high theology. Just plain speech in regular german.
Ethan Brooks
William Hughes
Murphy
Oliver Taylor
It's not a very good book.
He was far better at public speaking than writing that's for sure
Carter Scott
Ken O'Keefe Unveils The Truth About Adolf Hitler
-------
Full Presentation
Jeremiah Sullivan
>german humor
Brandon Green
Stalag or Manheim.
Brandon Adams
This, or Ford translation. No misconstruing his words.
Elijah Gray
Started reading it to really try to understand Hitler's motives. At least at the time he wrote Mein Kampf, it seems Hitler was driven to his political views by a genuine love for the German people, and concerns on their preservation in the face of increasing globalization (Hapsburg multi-ethnic state) and the encroaching threat of Marxism (realized in Austria as the Social Democratic party). His main point is that a state exists not for its own means, or for the means of preserving some dogmatic ideology (e.g. democracy, "objectivity") or economic end (colonization, domination of global market), but for the preservation of its people (e.g. Slavs) will ultimately work for the ends of preserving their own peoples and cultures rather than for the preservation of the state. On the other hand, the Hapsburg empire was an ill-founded concept from the start, motivated by the Hapsburg dynasty's desire to consolidate more power and gain more personal wealth. Hitler argues that because of the state was driven by material greed and political convenience rather than a fundamental instinct of self-preservation on the part of a homogenous population, the Hapsburg empire was doomed to collapse many years before it did so, and was one of the main reasons the triple alliance lost the first World War.
(Hitler even goes further saying the Austro-Hungarian empire's weakness was the reason other countries were so willing to go to the side of the triple entente, since they were eager to get a slice of the pie once the allies were victorious and divided up the former empire. Hitler also says that the German people's innate naivete and sincerity were partially the cause of their downfall, in that they naively believed the Austro-Hungarian state had Germany and the German people's best interests in mind and were genuine allies, whereas from Hitler's viewpoint it was clear the Hapsburg government was only working with Germany from a standpoint of political convenience. (cont.)
Nathaniel Butler
It's not worth reading tbqh
His speeches and the secret societies matter
Eli Wood
Hitler also concludes that if Austro-Hungary had not been the ultimate cause of the World War, i.e. because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, they would probably have abandoned the triple alliance once the inevitable confrontation between Germany and the triple entente (England, France, Russia) came. They might even have switched to the side of the Entente as Italy did, a move on Italy's part which Hitler claims was further motivated by Italy's historically-based hatred of the Hapsburgs.)
A few other points I've gathered so far:
Hitler believes that Democracy is ultimately the gateway for Social Democracy, in other words Marxism to take power. The latter ideology relies on ethnic and class division to cause confusion and push their agenda (breakdown of the state and the annihilation of its original population's people and culture) under the guise of morally pleasing-sounding yet specious causes. Division in parliament (due to the chaotic representation of the personal interests of multiple fundamentally different nationalities) leads to ineffective policies and politicians, and stagnancy, and dissatisfaction among their constituents (especially the lower class) leads to the rise of Social Democracy (which at its inception relies on populism). He cites the example of Marxists seizing control of the unions in Austro-Hungary, for example, and their success gained by controlling the masses.
Hitler goes further in claiming that the success of any political movement depends on whether it can seize the support of the working class/masses, as these people have the drive and willingness for self-sacrifice (stemming from their indigent condition and lack of reverence for the state which does not support them) to achieve final victory. On the other hand, the petit bourgeois which many movements of Hitler's time relied on (e.g. the Pan-Germanism movement in Austria) are weak in their convictions since they are unwilling to give up...(cont.)
Isaiah Ward
I like Stalag and Mannheim
Stalag: endchan.xyz
Christian Gonzalez
their material wealth and only pursue social policy or causes to the point that it gratifies their own sense of moral self-satisfaction. Ultimately, they are a demographic who never had to fight for survival and thus lack the strength and fortitude to secure victory for any political movement.
Hitler also mentions how Marxists have seized control of the press and other cultural institutions (theater, art museums and exhibits, architecture) in order to push the degeneration of German culture in Austria, surreptitiously introduce their agenda into the public consciousness under the guise of "cosmopolitan" or "objective" journalism, and also attack any who oppose him in a united way. He argues this method of Marxists has been catastrophically effective and is the reason for the political malaise of his time. Hitler's antisemitism, due to his own account, arises from his personal observations that Jews are at the head of all of these pernicious Marxist institutions whose ends seem only to be the degradation and ultimately destruction of German culture.
Here you see where Hitler kind of starts to veer from pure rational thought. In his simultaneous critique and lauding of the virtues of German thought and culture, one can sense his implicit assumption of its superiority over those of other peoples, for example the Slavs (he calls the Hapsburg domestic policy "Slavification" or "pushing a Slavic hegemony", ultimately seeking to destroy the German population in Austria). So you can see there really is some element of German racial superiority underlying his ideology.
He also proceeds quite quickly to the conclusion that the Jews, as a race, are parasitic in nature, in that they do not rely on a territory of their own for subsistence, but rather on a "host" population. He claims that Jews, through their tool of Marxism, are the single greatest cause for the denigration of German culture in his day. (cont.)
Levi Fisher
The subtext of Mein Kompt is "don't be a patriot author for Germany". Some Jew will read it and then MKUltra you into being their controlled opposition.
That's on the posthumous back leaflet by Patton.
Patton didn't write a book. All done.
Blake James
What are some more good Nazi books?
Parker Cook
Perhaps Hitler assumes this is self-evident to those, or that those reading Mein Kampf have already subscribed to his political ideology (as he says in the preface), but he does not quite give enough analysis in the text to make such a sweeping conclusion, in my opinion. (He claims that it would take "several volumes" to address the issue satisfactorily.)
To augment his previous point that one needs to have the support of the masses in order to carry out a successful political movement, Hitler claims that one must unite the populace against a "common enemy" in order to placate self-doubts and misgivings of the populace in regards to the veracity of the ideology. Namely, if the movement has too many enemies, the people will fall back on their "objectivity" and start to wonder how they could be right (from a moral viewpoint) when their opponents are so numerous. Here, Hitler advocates conflating all enemies of the movement and presenting them as one united, monolithic enemy to the populace, and here is where I believe where we see the seeds of the genocidal component of National Socialism (equating Jews and Communists with the ultimate enemy, to which the German people must go to any lengths to defeat). Hitler seems to have no qualms with distorting information in order to manipulate the masses and unite them toward common goals (he repeatedly classifies the masses as "dunder-headed" and idiotic, in need of leadership, which as long as it's strong and decisive, they will follow to any end).
Finally, he tries to dabble in somewhat outdated Malthusian economics and claims that any people must pursue territorial conquest in order to offset the increased demands of a growing populace. He addresses the commonly-offered alternatives of "internal colonization" and economic expansion (through dominating the financial or consumer market, or through colonialism), and characterizes them as untenable or too dependent on the whims of other nations. (cont.)
Evan Foster
He claims that territorial expansion is the only sure way to securing a stable means of subsistence for a people and its nation, and thus advocates German territorial expansion *on the European continent*. He says that overseas colonies are almost impossible to sustain unless one has an all-powerful navy like Great Britain, or a hegemony of one's home continent, like the US (which he equates culturally with Great Britain). He asserts that Germany's best course of action is to pursue territorial expansion "in the East" (i.e. making territorial incursions into Russian-held territories such as Poland, Ukraine, Belarus or even Russia itself). He further justifies this with some social Darwinism commentary, making the case that any "race" worth preserving should be able to fight for its survival and win, that while there is still much undeveloped land on Earth for nations to fight over, that ultimately there will come a time where undeveloped territory runs out which will lead to a global conflict of nations and races, in which the German peoples must be ready to achieve victory at any cost.
In any case, perhaps here is where we see the motives of Hitler to invade Poland, Sudetenland, declare war on the allies and ultimately Russia, etc. His ideology is inherently expansionist, and he believes it is only through achieving victory through conflict and conquest that a people can justify and preserve their existence.
Hitler addresses some practical concerns of the proposed territorial expansion, claiming that Germany should've befriended or else allied itself with England at the turn of the century, so that they would have an ally to guard their rear as they rode into the "East". He posits that if Germany had really wanted to pursue a colonialist policy abroad (e.g. in Africa), then it should've conversely allied itself with Russia to secure its home front on the European continent.
Carter Robinson
Ford.
Asher Peterson
Hitler shows some degree of admiration for the British people, lauding their courage, tenacity and willingness to achieve victory at any cost. He also credits English propagandists with being one of the main reasons for the allied victory in the first World War, namely that they made the war a moral issue (Britain and the allies were fighting for the smaller nations which Germany sought to oppress), thus uniting its populace in an unprecedented way.
Filling in the ether between these key points are Hitler's own personal rants against his political enemies in parliament as well as a (sometimes out-of-place) account of his own hardships in his childhood (one can see he clearly has some daddy issues) and his adolescence, when he was forced to live with lower-class people after (as almost everyone knows) being rejected from art school. Hitler's bitterness in some degree towards his father's unwillingness to support his artistic ambitions but in larger part due to the indigent conditions he was forced to live in after being rejected by the academy, no doubt influenced his ideology, particularly its cynicism of liberal social policies and Darwinistic aspects.
I could probably go into more, but don't really have the time now. All in all, it's worth a read just to gain more insight into the mind of Hitler. He somewhat makes a case for some parts of his ideology, but one can see it is colored by his own personal experiences and hints of megalomania.
Adam Stewart
>Patton didn't write a book.
Bullshit. War As I Knew It. Learn to history, moron.